Running Down A Dream (Roxbury's P-3)

[philip]

Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3
Boston Business Journal - 4:57 PM EDT Wednesday

Developers have submitted plans calling for mixed uses of residential, office and retail on eight acres of land in Roxbury known as P-3.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority in December called for requests for proposals on the site, located at Tremont and Ruggles streets.

Three developers submitted proposals, which were unveiled by the BRA Tuesday:

Elma Lewis Partners LLC, which is being sponsored by the National Center of Afro-American Artists in its bid to develop Ruggles Place, which would consist of 300,000 square feet of office, educational and medical space; 47,000 square feet of retail space, 60,000 square feet dedicated to a museum, space for arts and education programs, a 1,044-space parking garage and 300 units of for-sale units.

Weston Associates and Taylor Smith Properties, backed by the Canyon Johnson Urban Fund and Community Equity Partners to develop a project called Heritage Common, which would have 320,000 square feet of retail, a 120,000-square-foot hotel, 100,000 square feet of office, a 3,000 square-foot jazz center, 620 parking spaces and 156,000 square feet of housing.

Trinity Financial and Madison Park Development Corp., which are proposing Tremont Center: 220,000 square feet of commercial and office space, 20,000 square feet of retail, 111 units of mixed-income housing, 300-units of student housing, and an employment and business assistance center. The team also plans to develop The Roxbury Community Cultural Center to house a restaurant, exhibition and performance space and a venue for educational displays.

The parcel is one of the largest of seven publicly owned sites in the Roxbury Master Plan area and was previously designated by the city as a redevelopment opportunity to help revitalize the Roxbury area.

 

[cityrecord]

I'm not going to say anything about the merits of each proposal (I'm friends with some people involved with one of the proposals) but I will say that it is about time this parcel is built. Given its proximity to Northeastern and the Orange Line and Commuter Rail this is the kind of development the city needs to be encouraging. My own preference runs to more space for housing and offices than retail--I wouldn't want this to be become a shopping complex people have to drive to, although one would think a grocery store would be a likely tenant--and I am encouraged by the inclusion of cultural amenities.

 

[czsz]

Project Roxbury
Ruggles Place aims to boost neighborhood jobs and arts
Ariel White, Correspondent

Roxbury's City Councilor said he hopes a proposed new neighborhood center -- Ruggles Place -- will help regenerate the economy in Roxbury, both in terms of jobs and through opportunities for cultural growth.

"There is potential for a base of funding for a community owned arts center." City Councilor Chuck Turner said, "Our most drastic need is entry level jobs and hopefully they will be provided."

The BRA and the Mayor's office announced Ruggles Place, the latest project in a city push to boost Roxbury.

According to Mayor Thomas Menino, the new center is slated to house an educational and medical space, the Museum for the National Center for Afro-American Artists, a performing arts center, and would be coupled with planned renovation of the Whittier Street Health Center.

"It's always been a goal of mine to see the neighborhood vision come to life in Roxbury," said Menino. "Today we take one step closer to that goal."


Ruggles Place redevelopment
Developer Elma Lewis Partners proposes Ruggle Place -- located at the corner of Tremont and Ruggles streets -- at 1.3 million gross square feet, including 1,044 parking spaces in a garage.

 

[sidewalks]

not gonna happen

Enjoy the pretty pictures, because that's all this project will ever be. In order to proceed, this group requires $70 million in donations- not equity, donations. This is another example where the city allowed an unsophisticated 'community' group to direct the planning process. In this administration, the neighbors are never wrong.

 

[ablarc]

Re: not gonna happen

Enjoy the pretty pictures, because that's all this project will ever be. In order to proceed, this group requires $70 million in donations- not equity, donations. This is another example where the city allowed an unsophisticated 'community' group to direct the planning process. In this administration, the neighbors are never wrong.

...and the pictures aren't even so pretty.

 

[saltbox]

Re: not gonna happen

This is another example where the city allowed an unsophisticated 'community' group to direct the planning process.

sidewalks, you raise an interesting point. When you say unsophisticated 'community' groups, are you referring in whole or in part to Community Development Corporations?

 

[sidewalks]

not really

I'm not really alluding to the CDCs as being unsophisticated, I am referring to the city appointed group (Project Review Committee) that was charged with selecting a developer. It's absurd that a group that needs $70 million in donations could be selected. I really can't emphasize this point enough. There are dozens of groups rallying for money and having a darn hard time raising it. And those projects are far more likely to attract major donors: the Boston Museum Project, Mass Horticultural etc. Look at how egregiously Mass Hort failed, and look at how long it took for the ICA to put together the necessary money, despite the fact that it was selling an iconic new facility.

This group was selling ice cream, sunshine, and free universal health care. Everything they propose sounds wonderful, but I would be absolutely shocked if the vision is realized. Where is the money coming from? The city should have vetted the proposals thoroughly and ensured that such a crucial project shortcoming was thoroughly considered by the PRC.

I've got nothing against the CDCs, but they need to be held to a minimum standard: can this project be built?

 

[rikahlberg]

Ruggles Place selected

So is this ever going to get built? It appears that the Ruggles Place project won out last year, but the NCAAA web site says:

Under terms of the BRA, Elma Lewis Partners, Inc. has a year to convert the tentative designation to a permanent one, after which licensing and construction can begin.

Source: http://www.ncaaa.org/parcel3.html

I wonder how the community will react if the chosen developer doesn't meet the BRA's requirements and someone else gets selected??

Elma Lewis Partners to Breathe New Life into Roxbury with ?Ruggles Place?

Mayor Thomas M. Menino today announced that the Boston Redevelopment Authority Board granted tentative designation to Elma Lewis Partners, LLC as redeveloper of Parcel P-3 in Roxbury. Today?s announcement comes after an extensive planning process with the Roxbury community that laid the groundwork for the redevelopment of this prominent parcel. The Elma Lewis Partners proposal, known as Ruggles Place, consists of more than 1.3 million gross square feet of new cultural, residential, office, retail, medical, and art educational uses. The project, which also includes a 1,044 space parking garage and the renovation of the existing former Whittier Street Health Center building, will greatly transform the long vacant parcel located at the corner of Tremont and Ruggles Streets in Roxbury.

?It?s always been a goal of mine to see the neighborhood vision come to life in Roxbury,? Mayor Menino said. ?Today, we are one step closer to that goal. Parcel P-3 will be a catalyst for new job and growth opportunities, resulting in a better neighborhood for those who call Roxbury home. I want to especially thank the community for their partnership with the city ? it is because of their hard work and dedication that we are able to designate this parcel and ultimately breathe new life into this neighborhood.?
About the Proposed Project

Ruggles Place includes the development of four building blocks whose heights range from 4 to 20 stories. The use and gross square footages are as follows:
? 300,801 SF of office, educational, and medical space
? 60,100 SF of new space for the Whittier Street Health Center
? 47,471 SF of retail space
? 58,455 SF of space for the Museum for the National Center for Afro-American Artists
? 232,931 SF of space for arts and education programs including the renovation of 34,000 SF of the former Whittier Street Health Center Building
? 356,800 SF for the creation of 300 residential units
? A 1,200 to 1,600 seat performing arts center (included as a second phase)
? 342,331 SF for a parking garage with 1,044 spaces

Ruggles Place identifies itself as a contemporary urban structure to create a unique identity for the NCAAA while enhancing the urban fabric of its surrounding neighborhood and Lower Roxbury. Parcel P-3 will be subdivided into four smaller building blocks to create pedestrian friendly sized blocks. Open space and court yards throughout the development reinforce the pedestrian environment and connectivity between buildings. A major pedestrian plaza and new street are proposed at the center of the project?s Tremont Street frontage.

The block proposed for the corner of Tremont Street and Whittier Street will contain a 5-story, Museum of the NCAAA with housing and ground floor retail space. The major galleries of this space are planned to run along the Tremont Street expanse. Street-level retail and entertainment space will occupy the other corner in this block with another major entrance from the new plaza to the Museum. Above the Museum and the retail, housing is proposed facing Tremont Street, Whittier Street, and the proposed plaza.

Another proposed building block fronting Tremont Street, created by the new plaza, street and the restored Hampshire Street, locates 300,801 GSF of retail, medical, education and office buildings at 5 to 7 stories in height. The ground-floor retail along Tremont Street will create an active pedestrian environment combined with the above office space to create street wall continuity at 5 stories. The new 6-story, 60,100 SF Whittier Street Community Health Center will occupy the corner of this block at Tremont Street and the new plaza and street.

The proposed block at the corner of Whittier and Downing Streets will contain a 5-story, 232,931 GSF art education facility incorporating 34,000 SF of the existing former Whittier Street Health Center building. The former Whittier Street Health Center will be renovated and connected to the new arts education facility that will run from Downing Street to the new street and to Hampshire Street creating a court yard located inside the block.

At the fourth proposed block there will be a 4-story, 342,331 SF structured parking facility with a 20-story residential tower above it. The ground level will have retail space along the edge of the garage structure, activating Hampshire Street and the new street. The residential entrance will be located at the corner of Hampshire Street and the new street fronting the new plaza.

Source: http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/press/PressDisplay.asp?pressID=372

And more pretty pictures...

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3

From what I hear, no progress has been made on this project. It will be very interesting to see whether the BRA adheres to the one year designation schedule that it established. My guess is that the Elma Lewis group will be given an extension. It won't matter, they will not be able to put together a viable project. Truth be told NO team will be able to put together a viable project until the land is valued more reasonably. There are two other major RFPs out right now: Riverside station, and JFK station. Both sites are demonstrably more valuable on a per square foot basis...yet, P-3 is more than 3 times as expensive. Why? Because community groups are given too much authority and the city doesn't know when to say NO.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3

From what I hear, no progress has been made on this project. It will be very interesting to see whether the BRA adheres to the one year designation schedule that it established. My guess is that the Elma Lewis group will be given an extension. It won't matter, they will not be able to put together a viable project. Truth be told NO team will be able to put together a viable project until the land is valued more reasonably. There are two other major RFPs out right now: Riverside station, and JFK station. Both sites are demonstrably more valuable on a per square foot basis...yet, P-3 is more than 3 times as expensive. Why?

Location, location, location.

Because community groups are given too much authority and the city doesn't know when to say NO.

While I do agree with you on this point I don't think that it is totally to blame for why some projects can't get off the ground. It's not that these groups have too much power but rather they don't know what to do with it when they have it. These are not developers, they are people who cared about the neighborhood that suddenly found themselves with everything they wanted but now have no idea what to do. The reasons these projects are taking forever is because they need people to hold their hands while they wade through the paperwork nightmare that is required to get anything done in this city.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3

I'm going to assume you were agreeing with me and that you don't actually believe that P-3 is more valuable than either riverside or JFK...and if it is, it certainly isn't worth 3 times more than the other parcels.

That said, it is a bit odd to say that the community groups don't have too much power, but that it is simply that they don't know how to use it. You're right, these activists aren't aren't developers, they aren't planners and they certainly don't understand finance. Aside from the fact that the empowerment of community groups gives an excess of power to NIMBYs with too much time on their hands, they need to be given very discreet responsibilities if and when they are involved in the approval and planning process. Allowing them to have a say in how much the lease rate for a given parcel shall be is absurd...especially when the community group believes it will be a direct recipient of that revenue. (which is what occurred at Parcel 3) There is an obvious conflict of interest- again, an excess amount of power has been granted to the community group. Of course they are going to demand an absurdly rich price- they think that lease rate will fund community programs that they administer.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3

After 1 year, no progress on Roxbury?s art complex

By Scott Van Voorhis | Wednesday, April 30, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Business & Markets

Photo by Ted Fitzgerald
When a key set of city-owned parcels in Roxbury hit the block, some predicted a development gold rush into the long-neglected neighborhood.

But roughly a year after a local nonprofit group was tapped to build a $350 million arts complex at the first and most crucial parcel, P3, there is no sign of activity.

The would-be developers of Ruggles Place have yet to file any plans with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and now face a looming June deadline to show progress on their initial proposal.

Meanwhile, the group already appears in danger of blowing its proposed timetable of being ready to open its massive, 1 million-square-foot arts and housing complex in 2011.

A significant delay or setback, in turn, could revive controversy over City Hall?s selection of the Ruggles Place plan over two competing ventures by high-powered, for-profit developers. One of the groups that wasn?t selected had financial backing from Earvin ?Magic? Johnson?s $900 million investment fund.

Darnell Williams, chairman of the community oversight panel, said he remains supportive of the project, but also noted developers face more challenging times.

?They are not moving as fast as we would like, but the economy has shifted since the time we made that decision,? Williams said. ?They are going to have to break ground rather quickly to be open around 2011.?

A nonprofit venture that includes a new home for the Museum of the National Center of Afro-American Artists, the group has envisioned raising $70 million from investors and contributions. The project also includes 300 housing units, retail space, a 1,200- to 1,600-seat performing arts center and 232,931 square feet for arts and education programs.

Meanwhile, a number of competing proposals for museum and art complexes are seeking money from contributors, said David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

?There is an awful lot of asking going on out there, at a time some people are feeling a little nervous,? Begelfer said.

 

[kelleychri]

Re: Proposals submitted for Roxbury's P-3

Does anyone know what the deal with this is now? I can't imagine now would be a great climate to be trying to raise money. Plus they still havent broken ground on it. And it will only be more difficult once you have all the traffic from Parcel 18, NU's new dorm, and whatever hotel is going in.

 

[statler]

Running Down A Dream

Banker & Tradesman - January 19, 2009

Running Down A Dream

Real Fun Is Debating Pie-In-The-Sky Developments
By Scott Van Voorhis
Banker & Tradesman Columnist

The Hub may be facing hard times, but there is one thing the city still produces in abundance: Pipe dream developments.

It is just much more fun for the city?s legions of neighborhood activists to endlessly debate grand real estate schemes that will never get built than to focus on something more practical.

It certainly doesn?t mean things don?t get built around here, because a lot certainly does, such as the aircraft-carrier-sized convention center and the State Street tower.

But the real fun comes in debating plans so grand ? and so economically unfeasible ? that they are unlikely to ever make the jump from paper to concrete, steel and glass.

This peculiar and somewhat exasperating trait comes to mind amid the debacle of what was supposed to have been a centerpiece redevelopment project for Roxbury.

City Hall put a key development parcel, P-3, out to bid in early 2006 in hopes of bringing some downtown-style development to a desolate tract of debris-strewn land near Boston Police Department?s Roxbury headquarters and Ruggles Square.

But in true Boston tradition, the local businessmen with the money and a viable plan were rejected in favor of a grandiose vision of a nonprofit arts complex, complete with a downtown-sized price-tag.

To be fair, it was certainly a noble idea, with plans for a 60,000-square foot museum for the National Center for Afro-American Artists, while an old health center was to have been converted into an arts school.

But nearly two years later, the dreamers are out, having missed at least two deadlines to produce any evidence whatsoever of some cold hard cash to back their $350 million vision.

Now who would have guessed that outcome? Of course, it?s a decision being blasted by some city councilors, including Chuck Turner.

?They failed to meet the requirement to let us know how they were going to finance their development program,? John Palmieri, the new director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, told me.

Of course, now it?s back to square one, with the BRA talking about eventually putting the key development tract out to bid again.

Good luck with that.

Now if this all sounds so familiar to those in the local development business, well it is. For Ruggles Place is just the latest in a long and illustrious line of pipe dream projects that have triggered endless hours of debate in Boston at the expense of more realistic proposals.

If you are looking for a pipe dream, the Hub?s your town.

The Ruggles Place proposal, with its striking mismatch between lofty ambition and empty coffers, bears an uncanny resemblance to the long-debated Garden Under Glass.

That was the Massachusetts Horticultural Society?s proposal to build a $100 million-plus glass-encased botanical garden just outside South Station. The group never managed to raise a dime, but that didn?t stop it from stubbornly tying up a prime tract of real estate for more than 15 years with this expensive fantasy.

Of course, developers can play the pipe dream game as well. Frank McCourt spent two decades talking up various plans to recreate Back Bay or even a Parisian boulevard on South Boston?s waterfront. Of course, nothing ever got built, though McCourt did manage to sell his sprawling tract of surface parking lots a few years ago and buy the Los Angeles Dodgers.

The Fan Pier project, or at least one office building, is now under construction after 25-years of debate. But I am still waiting for that marina, the harbor front shops and eateries, and all that waterfront parkland the project?s original, and now long-gone, Chicago developers pledged back when they won city approval back in 2001.

Then of course, there is Tommy?s Tower, Mayor Thomas M. Menino?s vision of a thousand-foot skyscraper that, even if the billion-dollar project could have been financed, would have required emptying out the rest of the financial district to fill it. Still, I liked idea of a park in the clouds at the top, though maybe someone should have consulted the FAA first about flight paths from Logan.

I could go on and on and on, but let?s get back to our still undeveloped tract of potentially prime land in Roxbury.

That group of local businessman looked like early frontrunners. It was led by Richard Taylor, a local minority developer and former secretary of transportation in the Weld Administration. It also included backing by former Lakers? great Earvin ?Magic?? Johnson?s California investment fund.

Of the contenders for the site, it was only Heritage Commons that was able to commit to inking a not-inexpensive deal to lease the eight-acre site from the city at $3 a square foot.

Taylor and crew won an early nod from a city-appointed community panel.

But then the businessmen did the unthinkable. They changed their plans based on some pretty big shifts in the real estate market. An initial emphasis on housing later gave way to office space as the residential market weakened. A jazz center and a hotel put on hold.

But that pragmatism apparently hurt the group?s chances. The community panel, in the spring of 2007, awarded the deal to Ruggles Place, citing, among other things, the consistency of its vision.

Of course, the other consistent factor was the group had no money in the first place to implement its laudable, but expensive plans.

Still, it took another year for city officials to figure that one out.

This summer, a year after winning City Hall?s nod, the would-be Ruggles Place developers failed to meet a key city financing requirement. Not to have the money in hand, mind you, but rather to demonstrate a viable plan to pay for its proposal.

After a second deadline came and went this fall with no evidence of any progress on the money front, city development officials pulled the group?s development designation for the Ruggles site.

I guess that?s an improvement of sorts. They could have let this drag on for decades, as is the tendency with such pipe dreams in Boston. But it?s pretty clear an opportunity was missed here. One that, in this economy, won?t be coming back anytime soon.

Tagline: E-mail: sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com

 

[johnpaul5]

Re: Running Down A Dream

Hmm...I thought Voorhis was the epitome of nimbyism, but now I am not sure whether he is for or against development...

 

[KentXie]

Re: Running Down A Dream

Sounds like he noticed some of the complaints are ridiculous or that he is sick of hearing about projects that are written off due to Nimbys.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Running Down A Dream

I think he's getting paid to be cynical; it doesn't become him.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Running Down A Dream

I don't follow John...isn't Scott the fellow who described every tower as 'soaring'? Is that not a cynical expression in such a context?

If you disagree with the substance of the article I'd be interested to hear your take...

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I merged this with the old thread about Roxbury's P-3.

Re article: I think we all saw this coming.

 

[JohnAKeith]

I agree, Scott's written similar things over the years, it's just that I think his B&T and Boston.com real estate blog entries are more "long-armed" "from far away" opinions about things instead of pertinent "newsy" articles. Columns, if you will. Not news-making.

His columns now seem to be more "woe is me / us".

Not saying things aren't like that, just that we need someone to continue to break news about development, etc.