Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

[vanshnookenraggen]

As Sicilian hinted at, when new luxury developments are built, supply goes up and previous generations of luxury housing eventually go down in price to affordable levels.

This has been the case for generations. Remember when the townhouses of the Back Bay and South End were cheap boarding houses? It's a cycle of rich, to moderate, to poor. Gentrification was the first time that the cycle then jumped back to "rich".

 

[czsz]

^ Except the majority of Boston wasn't built like the South End or Back Bay. Vast swathes of the city were built explicitly to cater for the housing needs of the middle class and poor, something that no one but the government does anymore.

 

[Sicilian]

The BRA conducted a study in 1998 which demonstrated that if 8,000 housing units were developed in the Seaport (of any type) over the next few decades, the pressure index on outlying neighborhoods from the new Seaport area workforce would be relieved and employees working within the Seaport District would likely meet the supply of new housing. The full capacity of the area transit system, heavily burdened at full build, would also be relieved.

In the face of political opposition against housing at the time of that study, the BRA's Seaport Public Realm Plan lowered its sights, suggesting a goal of 5,000-8,000 housing units (2,500 north and 2,500 south of Summer Street). The BRA later quietly reduced that goal to 4,000 housing units in the Municipal Harbor Plan.

As the market for office and commercial space continues to prove more viable (i.e. profitable for development), available land for residential construction will continue to dwindle. Much of the pressure, both from the financial district and BCEC, presumes the Seaport will develop as a destination for suburban residents (e.g. office space) and tourists (hotels) with a mix of commercial amenities.

Lacking a critical mass of residents, the Seaport will be Kendall Square, lively mostly from 9-5 on weekdays. But unlike Kendall Square, the Seaport won't have the room to readapt itself to accommodate residential at a later date when people realize the properties have not attained their true potential value.

Ten years since the BRA's 1998 study, we have 3 major hotels and 3 office towers (maybe more?) completed. Fan Pier Phase One has no residential and Seaport Square Phase One is approved for predominately office and commercial space, with a scant 125 (or somewhere around there) units of residential housing. Fan Pier's 21 acres, at full build in a decade or two, is approved for a maximum of 650-675 units of housing. Seaport Square claims to have 2,500 units of housing at full build, just don't ask where the land will exist for that in the years 2020-2040.

Simply put, the Seaport is not destined to be a dense urban community of any sort. Any time the media barks about it, the BRA defensively points to a 100-unit condo being built somewhere on Broadway in Southie. And there is a rental apartment building in Fort Point going through approvals.

***** on a different topic *****

As for the proposed changes to the footprint sizes of buildings on Seaport Square, I think Shepard really said it best with reference to the A Street Highrise in that thread:

Its small footprint should be a model for Fan Pier. All of Fort Point should have been a model for Fan Pier.

Let's just hope the stumps of Fan Pier don't become a model for Fort Point.

The A Street Highrise, which reaches the FAA height limit of around 300 feet, would be a much better scale for buildings on Seaport Square than the planned megablocks, allowing for an improved street layout, alternating building types and a more interesting pedestrian environment.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

^ Except the majority of Boston wasn't built like the South End or Back Bay. Vast swathes of the city were built explicitly to cater for the housing needs of the middle class and poor, something that no one but the government does anymore.

The housing built in Roxbury and Dorchester were built on greenfields, and much of the first residential development there came with the new train lines. These were built for wealthy city merchants to have a country house. The idea of a middle class suburb only came about well after these wealthy residents had moved further out and newer transportation technology reduced the price of commuting, thus much of the land (and many of the older houses) followed the pattern I mentioned.

I don't want to sound like I am defending this practice, rather I am just pointing out the historical nature of housing development.

 

[czsz]

But we're talking about the economic viability of private housing development for the middle and lower classes.

Roxbury and Dorchester are not like Back Bay and the South End in that the actual, physical housing stock there was not developed for the wealthy, even if rich people did pave the path for urbanization by making these areas attractive targets.

So are you saying that they were developed mostly because the wealthy had moved further out, depressing land prices, and meaning that the only sort of development that could be envisioned there was for the lower classes?

Because we have a situation in the Seaport right now in which developers are sitting on land that they could develop for (dense) middle class residential use, but seem to want to wait for the higher profits that come with luxury condos. Is it because they couldn't make a profit developing middle class housing on brownfields, or because they think there is a potential for luxury housing that could no longer be imagined in places like Roxbury and Dorchester in the late 19th century?

Either way, Boston has a serious problem attracting any private investment in cheap(er) housing. Nearly every space that's opened up is immediately valuable and speculated on like crazy. There's almost never a situation where a developer doesn't want to immediately build luxury or is willing to let the lot sit dead until he can do so, because the possibility of those profits will be available at some point in a city with such an undersupply of housing.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

So are you saying that they were developed mostly because the wealthy had moved further out, depressing land prices, and meaning that the only sort of development that could be envisioned there was for the lower classes?

Yes and no. What the upper classes do eventually trickles down to the middle and lower classes. You can see this in many aspects our culture, from the first cars to the first suburbs. These things start out expensive because that's where the money is. Then when the money moves on the infrastructure remains to be used by the middle/lower classes. Since they don't have to pony the money up front to build up these areas then the larger houses/estates of the wealthy can be subdivided, thereby creating attractive and affordable housing.

Because we have a situation in the Seaport right now in which developers are sitting on land that they could develop for (dense) middle class residential use, but seem to want to wait for the higher profits that come with luxury condos. Is it because they couldn't make a profit developing middle class housing on brownfields, or because they think there is a potential for luxury housing that could no longer be imagined in places like Roxbury and Dorchester in the late 19th century?

It's because for the last 10 years they money was in luxury housing. It isn't more complicated than that. Yes, inflated land prices created a bubble that could only be afforded by the wealthy, but that bubble was created on the notion that the wealthy were interested in moving downtown again.

Many people, including on this board, lament the fact that the South Boston Waterfront could have been the next Back Bay. So why are we now arguing over affordable housing? The Back Bay wasn't developed as a place for the middle class, it was for the richest of the rich, the bluest of the blue bloods. It was only well after the area developed and the rich moved out that any middle class people could think of moving it.

Either way, Boston has a serious problem attracting any private investment in cheap(er) housing. Nearly every space that's opened up is immediately valuable and speculated on like crazy. There's almost never a situation where a developer doesn't want to immediately build luxury or is willing to let the lot sit dead until he can do so, because the possibility of those profits will be available at some point in a city with such an undersupply of housing.

You are accusing real estate developers of being real estate developers. They are in a business to make money and they intent to make as much as possible. That doesn't mean it's right, but when has making money been the most pious aim?

***

The sad fact is that what we are asking for, affordable middle class housing in new areas, can only be created by government intervention. If left to the market, do you know where the middle class migrate to? The suburbs. The idea that we can create Utopian mixed income communities is still just wishful thinking; most Americans want to live around people like them.

Boston actually has a better system for getting affordable housing out of developers than a lot of other big cities. New York's affordable housing plan is a joke that developers routinely dismiss.

***

I realize I'm beginning to sound a little pro-wealth right now so I want to step back and repeat that I am all for affordable housing, I just think the system we have in place to force developers to pay for it is a terrible system. Everytime I pass a single story retail store I think of how great it would be if it were a few stories taller with housing above the store, real affordable housing where it is needed and where it would to real good.

 

[czsz]

Yes, larger houses are often subdivided for the poor in neighborhoods they inherit from the rich. But tenements and triple deckers were explicitly developed for the lower classes in places like Roxbury and Dorchester. The "trickle-down" effect here wasn't physical, for the most part, with the exception of a big old house here or there.

This is the kind of development no one seems to be engaged in anymore. Of course, part of the reason is that everyone now expects more luxury than they did in the past. In 1890, a triple decker with a yard and space between outer walls was a comparatively "luxurious" facsimile of the features that popularized the country houses that used to populate the area. But WWII and the American Dream made the American middle class lust for much more: now it knows it can have a cheap 40,000 square foot house - if it buys in Franklin. What the wealthy had didn't change: middle class expectations did. Developers can't provide the same in expensive cities, because what they could profit from and sell at the same price could not compete.

Back to the topic: why agitate for middle class housing at the Seaport? Because it would necessarily be denser, and fill in more quickly. Although the scale and architecture don't compare, the Seaport's glacial progress is comparable to Back Bay or Fenway in their early days. They took decades to "finish", because the demand wasn't there. Everyone wanted the Seaport to look like the Back Bay, but using it as a socioeconomic model for development necessarily resulted in slow progress. But, as the trend in middle class housing indicates, there was never a real alternative.

 

[shiz02130]

One of the reasons why triple-deckers aren't built is that current residential zoning codes do not allow for 3-family density on the traditional triple-decker-sized lots.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Yes, larger houses are often subdivided for the poor in neighborhoods they inherit from the rich. But tenements and triple deckers were explicitly developed for the lower classes in places like Roxbury and Dorchester. The "trickle-down" effect here wasn't physical, for the most part, with the exception of a big old house here or there.

You are missing what I am saying. Tripple-deckers and the rest were built AFTER these areas had become places for the wealthy, after they had left and industry had moved in. That is the trickle down I am reffering to.

This is the kind of development no one seems to be engaged in anymore. Of course, part of the reason is that everyone now expects more luxury than they did in the past. In 1890, a triple decker with a yard and space between outer walls was a comparatively "luxurious" facsimile of the features that popularized the country houses that used to populate the area. But WWII and the American Dream made the American middle class lust for much more: now it knows it can have a cheap 40,000 square foot house - if it buys in Franklin. What the wealthy had didn't change: middle class expectations did. Developers can't provide the same in expensive cities, because what they could profit from and sell at the same price could not compete.

You answered the question nicely there. We don't build lower-middle class housing anymore because the majority has moved up into middle class and upper-middle class (this is a gross over generalization however). Since there is not money in building lower class housing, the lower class gets the left overs, which during the last 50 years was inner city apartment/town/row houses. People clamoring for affordable middle class housing need to look no further than 495.

Back to the topic: why agitate for middle class housing at the Seaport? Because it would necessarily be denser, and fill in more quickly. Although the scale and architecture don't compare, the Seaport's glacial progress is comparable to Back Bay or Fenway in their early days. They took decades to "finish", because the demand wasn't there. Everyone wanted the Seaport to look like the Back Bay, but using it as a socioeconomic model for development necessarily resulted in slow progress. But, as the trend in middle class housing indicates, there was never a real alternative.

We need to keep this on auto-quote so whenever someone comes here and complains about how ugly/slow the Seaport is we don't have to sped the time rewriting the same answer.

 

[Sicilian]

I question how much history of other areas of Boston are a useful guide for the Seaport.

As far as I can tell, no other empty tracts of land were improved by $billions in public investment such as CAT/Tunnel, BCEC, MBTA and no other areas were incentivized by a wealth of variances and tax breaks by comparison with the Seaport's private property as it was originally purchased.

It's one thing to buy land and develop it according to what was bought -- that's the free market system. It's another thing to buy land and sit back while it's enriched by the taxpayer for two decades.

The lack of signficant residential on the Seaport, of any type, is not a failure of the developers... it's a failure of planners to ensure the development of a mix of uses.

As for demand for residential, there may be limited demand in luxury residential, but I would bet there would be ample demand if Boston's supply was more moderately priced. On the Seaport, based on the enrichment of property, there's no excuse for the lack of progress. None.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

As far as I can tell, no other empty tracts of land were improved by $billions in public investment such as CAT/Tunnel, BCEC, MBTA and no other areas were incentivized by a wealth of variances and tax breaks by comparison with the Seaport's private property as it was originally purchased.

True, but keep in mind the infrastructure required to buildout the Back Bay in the 1800's for instance was a fraction of what's required today. I have no idea who paid for that infrastructure but I assume it wasn't much more than a water main, some sewer lines running directly into the Charles, and a cobblestone street built by underpaid immigrant labor. And the Back Bay did benefit from millions in public investment (first subway, BPL, the Common, etc.) as it was being built out.

 

[kennedy]

I was always under the impression that the Back Bay started as a large, government project. Or, that filling in the "Back Bay" was anyhow.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

All the landfill (Back Bay, South Bay, Bulfinch Triangle, South Boston) was done by private companies given the go ahead by the state. They then had the right to sell the land they created. The only significant piece of land created by the government would have been Logan Airport and I don't even know what the full involvement of the state was for that project.

Dumping billions of dollars into redevelopment schemes is really something that took off post-WW2 during urban renewal. Even large infrastructure projects were done by private companies for a long time (turnpikes, railroads, canals, etc)

 

[kennedy]

Yeah, I guess that does make sense considering I've never heard of much publicly funded infrastructure projects pre-WW2, except maybe Henry Clay's National Road ideas. Charles River Bridge Co. anyone? I recently saw a map of Boston pre-landfill in AP US History, and I had no idea how much land really was filled in. The City looked totally different.

 

[czsz]

As far as I can tell, no other empty tracts of land were improved by $billions in public investment such as CAT/Tunnel, BCEC, MBTA and no other areas were incentivized by a wealth of variances and tax breaks by comparison with the Seaport's private property as it was originally purchased.

It's one thing to buy land and develop it according to what was bought -- that's the free market system. It's another thing to buy land and sit back while it's enriched by the taxpayer for two decades.

But the taxpayer gets ROI in the form of tax revenues on the tenants, which are higher with luxury development (although the extent to which that's offset by a lack of progress is arguable). Luxury development = higher tax revenue. So the city may have a financial incentive at odds with its public policy / redevelopment one.

 

[czsz]

Yeah, I guess that does make sense considering I've never heard of much publicly funded infrastructure projects pre-WW2, except maybe Henry Clay's National Road ideas. Charles River Bridge Co. anyone?

I would suggest that giving away public property that has immense value counts as a subsidy. The transcontinental railroad may have never been built if the railroad wasn't promised land to sell on either side. The difference is that today the subsidy tends to be direct.

 

[Sicilian]

As I've said earlier, I have no problem with housing of any type (luxury or moderate), as long as there is lots of it to coincide with commercial projects, so some semblance of a neighborhood results.

My problem, probably drilled home to death at this point, is that with all the public investment and enrichment of private property on the Seaport, the property owners (and developers) have been getting away with building whatever makes sense for them (office / hotel), or sitting on parking lots waiting for more entitlements.

Residential development has not been a priority, nor is there evidence that it will be any point soon.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Sicilian says:

My problem, probably drilled home to death at this point, is that with all the public investment and enrichment of private property on the Seaport, the property owners (and developers) have been getting away with building whatever makes sense for them (office / hotel), or sitting on parking lots waiting for more entitlements.

Devil's Advocate says:

Doesn't "enriching private property" increase the property tax base, thereby improving the level of service offered to existing residents. Put another way, isn't Menino looking out for his constituents when he increases the value of (especially) non-residential property. The same way the Planning Board of Waltham is bettering Waltham Public Schools (or Police Dep't, or Water Commission, etc.) when it approves an office park off I-95.

AmericanFolkLegend says:

I don't 100% agree with Devil's Advocate, but I think it's a point that gets overlooked.

 

[Sicilian]

I agree with much of the point of this "Devil's Advocate."

To be frank, I wouldn't be so troubled by the level of public investment if I didn't believe the outcome is selfishly serving the private owners at the expense of the taxpayer.

Looking at a single parcel and determining its best use according to current market conditions has provided the maximum return for the property owner, not the taxpayer.

Looking at a single parcel and determining its best use (possibly residential) according to a variety of contextual factors (e.g. urban planning) would produce a district which, IMO, is more likely to be an engine for success -- and ROI.

In no way should this position be interpreted that the developer should not profit from the project. But if the taxpayer is an investor, then the developer shouldn't get to make all the ultimate decisions in the use of the parcel.

 

[JohnAKeith]

The developer owes no one nothing.