Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

The 25,000 square feet of retail at the base will be a welcome feature.
 
I think the news regarding Seaport Square is basically new ownership of a vacant parcel.

Skanska/Twining are the new owner.

This project itself has been announced and BRA-approved multiple times over the past 5 years by the prior owner, most recently in 2011, with renderings published each time it was announced. Nothing has changed besides ownership... correct?
 
Sicilian said:
I think the news regarding Seaport Square is basically new ownership of a vacant parcel.

Skanska/Twining are the new owner.

This project itself has been announced and BRA-approved multiple times over the past 5 years by the prior owner, most recently in 2011, with renderings published each time it was announced. Nothing has changed besides ownership... correct?
Click to expand...

The key is that the companies getting involved in the SPID are involved Big Time in Kendall

from the Globe article:
http://www.boston.com/Boston/busine...YArlBV3ccuzs5PurGnlO/index.html?p1=News_links

"“The Innovation District provides one of the most exciting opportunities for development in Boston in many years and we are eager to contribute to this area,” said Shawn Hurley, vice president and regional manager for Skanska in Boston. “The plan for a mix of uses will allow for creation of a dynamic neighborhood where people will want to live, work, and play.”

The building by Skanska and Twining will also have 25,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor, enough for several restaurants and shops.

Twining has been involved in the larger Seaport Square project since 2007, advising Morgan Stanley on the 2.85 million square feet of planned residential space. Its project with Skanska will be among the first buildings to break ground in the massive project, which will also include several other residential buildings, offices, a hotel, parks and community spaces.

Twining has also been involved in the development of Kendall Square in Cambridge -- including the 321-unit Watermark Cambridge project and another residential building next door. Its projects brought six new restaurants to that area.

Skanska started worked last fall on its first local development at 150 Second St. in Cambridge, where it is building a laboratory building. "
Click to expand...

Need to qualify the last sentence - -Skansa has built a lot of projects around Boston -- However, the lab for which the steel structure is currently being erected on 2nd St. in Cambridge is the first project in which Skansa is the developer

Pairing Twinning of the Watermark in Kendall and Skansa of the Lab at Kendall bodes well for the SPID in general and Seaport Sq, in particular
 
Sicilian said:
I think the news regarding Seaport Square is basically new ownership of a vacant parcel.

Skanska/Twining are the new owner.

This project itself has been announced and BRA-approved multiple times over the past 5 years by the prior owner, most recently in 2011, with renderings published each time it was announced. Nothing has changed besides ownership... correct?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to remember this lot in particular (if it's the one I'm thinking of) being approved with renderings posted.

Is this the lot behind the chapel or part of the big LAZ lot? I'm assuming the small lot on the SE corner of Seaport & Boston Wharf. Then again, that lot isn't really contiguous with the rest of the parking lots.... is that part of the old McCourt property?
 
According to the article, in the bizjournal (#541), it will be located on block K of Seaport Sqr (SE corner of Seaport & Boston Wharf). I have looked for block K on site plans and it is an "L" shaped parcel located on the SOUTHWEST corner of the Seaport & Boston Wharf intersection. One of them is correct (I'm guessing the site plan). This is part of the old McCourt holdings.
 
I think you are correct.

Here is a decent diagram, props to John Keith:

http://www.bostonreb.com/2008/05/the-beauty-that-is-seaport-square/

As for ownership, Seaport Square largely represents McCourt's former holdings across the board. I'd guess that even the existing Our Lady of Good Voyage parcel (building slated to be demolished) and the land occupied by the MBTA headhouse were both in McCourt's portfolio of land holdings. McCourt donated Childrens Museum park to the Childrens Museum on his way out.
 
Sicilian said:
I think you are correct.

Here is a decent diagram, props to John Keith:

http://www.bostonreb.com/2008/05/the-beauty-that-is-seaport-square/

As for ownership, Seaport Square largely represents McCourt's former holdings across the board. I'd guess that even the existing Our Lady of Good Voyage parcel (building slated to be demolished) and the land occupied by the MBTA headhouse were both in McCourt's portfolio of land holdings. McCourt donated Childrens Museum park to the Childrens Museum on his way out.
Click to expand...

Sicil -- the owners of this particular parcel now are an LLC of Skansa and Twining

I suspect that this is only the first of these kinds of deals for Seaport Sq. As the build out proceeds -- there will be a significant number of the parcels sold to other developers.

its much like VC's sharing the risk by inviting other VC's to come in as a partner as the rounds of funding get bigger for a start-up

This suggests that there will be at least a couple of architect teams involved as well -- we'll have to see how it pans out
 
Correct with one major caveat.

With VC funding no one gets to leave town with a payoff until a product is built.

On the contrary, in Boston, a lucky landowner leaves town with a payoff, having built NOTHING. The last owner who develops the building, in this case Skanska/Twining, has the slimmest of margins to fulfill all the BRA-approved obligations.

I've reminded you of this issue a number of times, whighlander. It's a mystery why you continue to insist there's so much risk involved when NOTHING is built. A vacant parcel was flipped and the beneficiary walks away -- in many cases the beneficiary leaves town.

Do VC's get to cash out before a single customer order is fulfilled?
 
Sicilian said:
Correct with one major caveat.

With VC funding no one gets to leave town with a payoff until a product is built.

On the contrary, in Boston, a lucky landowner leaves town with a payoff, having built NOTHING. The last owner who develops the building, in this case Skanska/Twining, has the slimmest of margins to fulfill all the BRA-approved obligations.

I've reminded you of this issue a number of times, whighlander. It's a mystery why you continue to insist there's so much risk involved when NOTHING is built. A vacant parcel was flipped and the beneficiary walks away -- in many cases the beneficiary leaves town.

Do VC's get to cash out before a single customer order is fulfilled?
Click to expand...

Sicil-- in both cases there are times when the investor walks away and if lucky finds a bargain hunter to cut the losses.

In the VC case there are plenty of times when a bunch of money is pumped in -- but something doesn't work-out -- then all that the investor can recover is sale of assets at a discount to some other investor

I've been the entrepreneur whose plug was pulled by the investor. I've also been a technical consultant hired by a bargain hunter to assess the scrap-value of an entrepreneur's dream

Similarly in the case of real estate there a plenty of times when the developer: buys the property; hires architect; legal, financial consultants; and then something K.O.s the development. At that point it may be best to walk away, and if lucky get another perhaps bargain hunter to buy the raw property

When I was still in Austin there was a case of a developer who filled a small cove in a man-made lake to build a marina and fancy resort condo complex. The developer built some of the condos and then the project was stopped when a law suit related to the filling was lost -- the developer had some finished and some under construction condos -- but no water access -- to add insult to injury the judgement required that the fill be removed. The developer went bankrupt and someone picked up the remnants at a nickel or so on the dollar. On a smaller scale -- my neighbor bought 2 houses ostensibly as rental property -- but in reality merely for the appreciation -- then the appreciation came to an abrupt halt -- he lost his own house in addition to the two investment properties.

I know you don't want to believe it -- but there really are no sure things --- Think of McCourt himself -- after everything has transpired -- what will he have to show for all his activity?
 
McCourt had a couple of decades to enjoy living atop the house of cards. If you take two guys who end up with nothing, which is better off? The one who always had nothing, or the one who for a time had huge amounts of something?
 
whighlander said:
I know you don't want to believe it -- but there really are no sure things --- Think of McCourt himself -- after everything has transpired -- what will he have to show for all his activity?
Click to expand...

500 Million to 700 Million liquid. Mr. McCourt is the either the luckiest guy on the planet or he actually is very bright.

Just look what is going on with the Dodgers right now.
 
TheRifleman said:
500 Million to 700 Million liquid. Mr. McCourt is the either the luckiest guy on the planet or he actually is very bright.

Just look what is going on with the Dodgers right now.
Click to expand...

Riff -- Not to get into the muck of his personal life -- But it seems quite possible that when Mrs. McCourt and all the attorney's are paid that Mr. McCourt might end up just with the parking lots next to Dodger Stadium
 
whighlander said:
Riff -- Not to get into the muck of his personal life -- But it seems quite possible that when Mrs. McCourt and all the attorney's are paid that Mr. McCourt might end up just with the parking lots next to Dodger Stadium
Click to expand...

"Just" 180 acres next door to downtown LA.
 
HenryAlan said:
McCourt had a couple of decades to enjoy living atop the house of cards. If you take two guys who end up with nothing, which is better off? The one who always had nothing, or the one who for a time had huge amounts of something?
Click to expand...

Henry -- that's a deep Philosophical conundrum akin to Socrates asking upon being sentenced to death by drinking a cup of Hemlock whether Socrates or the people watching him take the cup were better off.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
"Just" 180 acres next door to downtown LA.
Click to expand...

With beautiful veiws of downtown (on clear days), the Santa Anna Mountains, and the Hollywood hills on 2 other sides. Not a bad patch of land.

During my time working with the McCourt Group out in LA, I saw some ideas for that land, that could end up making him a very rich single man.

The Dodgers property is a phenomenal piece of property.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
With beautiful veiws of downtown (on clear days), the Santa Anna Mountains, and the Hollywood hills on 2 other sides. Not a bad patch of land.

During my time working with the McCourt Group out in LA, I saw some ideas for that land, that could end up making him a very rich single man.

The Dodgers property is a phenomenal piece of property.
Click to expand...

This was a good piece to read and understand what is going on with the Dodgers. Like I said before forget his personal life. I think McCourt knows what he is doing in Business.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dod...o-bud-selig-i-can-never-thank-you-enough.html
 
McCourt could not only get the record $1.5 billion he was looking for, but possibly $2 billion and still own the parking lots.
Click to expand...

He always was, and perhaps always will be, the parking lot king.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top