South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Re: South Station Tower

Man about town said:
Interesting idea that they should have held off on new stuff in the Seaport until more of the downtown, transit-accessible, towers had launched....
Click to expand...

pardon, but woefully obvious for a while now.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Tim Logan had a two part tweet. The second part alluded to needing to work out details with MassDOT.
 
Re: South Station Tower

odurandina said:
pardon, but woefully obvious for a while now.
Click to expand...

OK. Though I think that would have been an interesting conversation to have with the people who owned land in the Seaport ten years ago.
"No. Don't build on your parking lot until we've figured out this super complex skyscraper atop a train station."
 
Re: South Station Tower

Man about town said:
OK. Though I think that would have been an interesting conversation to have with the people who owned land in the Seaport ten years ago.
"No. Don't build on your parking lot until we've figured out this super complex skyscraper atop a train station."
Click to expand...


Isn't that what the BRA/City/State is supposed to do? Planning and advising for the best interests of the city and the taxpayers?

The Seaport is prime real estate. --
How is it for the best interest of the taxpayers/public that they basically gave all these tax incentives to the corporations to build on unlimited amounts of open space in which the average family can't even afford to buy in Chelsea Mass at this point?
 
Re: South Station Tower

Can the city do that though? Tell people don't build in place x until we're built out on place y?

My recollection on the Seaport is that it took way too long to get it started, so tax breaks were handed out before a burst of economic activity that nobody predicted happened. While I agree that a lot of this was mismanaged I don't think there's anything that could have been done about businesses preferring to locate there instead of downtown. Given the sky high cost of renting in Boston, its not necessarily a bad thing if the cost of leasing softens in the financial district as more towers (hopefully) go up.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Zoning is supposed to take care of this....you're allowed to build whatever you want within zoning on your property. And the city's strategic thinking is supposed to manifest in how the zones are constructed.


But as we all know, zoning is completely broken in Boston. Politically-motivated, self-interest motivated...or (more innocently) just entirely obsolete, or (less innocently) kept obsolete because it benefits certain self-interests

The solution to this (past due) is comprehensive zoning reform, with a systematic/periodic zoning review process to keep the zoning fresh/current/aligned with strategic planning
 
Re: South Station Tower

Rover said:
Can the city do that though? Tell people don't build in place x until we're built out on place y?

My recollection on the Seaport is that it took way too long to get it started, so tax breaks were handed out before a burst of economic activity that nobody predicted happened. While I agree that a lot of this was mismanaged I don't think there's anything that could have been done about businesses preferring to locate there instead of downtown. Given the sky high cost of renting in Boston, its not necessarily a bad thing if the cost of leasing softens in the financial district as more towers (hopefully) go up.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people would agree the Seaport took too long to get started, then once it did start, is building out faster than anyone expected. I also wonder - I wasn't here at the time so not sure how broad their search was - would Vertex have moved to Boston if their choices had been existing space or a complicated and not-yet-permitted tower like Bulfinch Crossing or South Station? I don't know.
 
Re: South Station Tower

bigpicture7 said:
The solution to this (past due) is comprehensive zoning reform, with a systematic/periodic zoning review process to keep the zoning fresh/current/aligned with strategic planning
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
The current zoning system gives leverage to lots of powerful interests (neighborhood groups, unions, savvy/connected developers, the BPDA itself), to get what they want out of a project. Clear, consistent updated zoning helps no one - except the people who have to pay the rents, of course.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Man about town said:
Good luck with that.
The current zoning system gives leverage to lots of powerful interests (neighborhood groups, unions, savvy/connected developers, the BPDA itself), to get what they want out of a project. Clear, consistent updated zoning helps no one - except the people who have to pay the rents, of course.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. i wasn't saying I expected it to happen!
I was just responding to those who were questioning how this process is supposed to work...e.g., what the mechanism could be to balance property owner's rights w/ the city's needs/infrastructural limitations...


And you're absolutely right, our current build-by-variance culture in Boston is all about who's got power

You're also right that zoning reform doesn't help the current "haves"/players, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it were put to a vote where all of us "non-player" boston residents (like me) got a say
 
Re: South Station Tower

Man about town said:
I think a lot of people would agree the Seaport took too long to get started, then once it did start, is building out faster than anyone expected. I also wonder - I wasn't here at the time so not sure how broad their search was - would Vertex have moved to Boston if their choices had been existing space or a complicated and not-yet-permitted tower like Bulfinch Crossing or South Station? I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think you hit on something important. I understood the reasoning behind the Vertex tax break as you needed a catalyst down there and the location made sense near a Silver Line stop. South Station tower has been in the works for decades. No way they wait that long for all the logistical issues to be worked out. If the developer is going to build SST on spec, I'd be more generous with them than on the next Seaport project even if that meant some tax incentives. Completed building = tax revenue. 30 years on the drawing board = 0 tax revenue.
 
Re: South Station Tower

TheRifleman said:
Isn't that what the BRA/City/State is supposed to do? Planning and advising for the best interests of the city and the taxpayers?

The Seaport is prime real estate. --
How is it for the best interest of the taxpayers/public that they basically gave all these tax incentives to the corporations to build on unlimited amounts of open space in which the average family can't even afford to buy in Chelsea Mass at this point?
Click to expand...

In the wake of the Big Dig + a tough economy, seek the lowest hanging fruit in the hopes you're building for a bright future. Momentum is everything.... not to mention, you have far less nimby mischief (can you hear them cackling over the Channel?... yeah, how's that 1000 room hotel in Back Bay working for you? Are we putting one in the Fenway yet?) And hats off to Menino for seeing the big picture on stepping up on innovation space, increasing tax-revenue down the line, by offering Class A on big wide open floorspaces, then marketing the Seaport to the world.... as opposed to Boston getting it's ass kicked by Cambridge, New York, San Jose, Seattle, etc and possiblyi never recovering.....

We may have already built the momentum that will catapult us to new heights on the world stage. Good on Menino, if not always great on architectural execution.
 
Re: South Station Tower

TheRifleman said:
Isn't that what the BRA/City/State is supposed to do? Planning and advising for the best interests of the city and the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

then again, 3 towers exceeding 180m built in the last 42 years in the core of a metro that during that time has grown to such mighty proportions as Boston – is not only a massive failure to plan and build density for the future – it's truly baffling.....
 
Re: South Station Tower

odurandina said:
then again, 3 towers exceeding 180m built in the last 42 years in the core of a metro that during that time has grown to such mighty proportions as Boston – is not only a massive failure to plan and build density for the future – it's truly baffling.....
Click to expand...

What? Towers has little to do with density. Ask Washington D.C.
 
Re: South Station Tower

^^or Paris. Consistency gets you there. They discussed this at one of the BCDC meetings; which went something like, "Almost everyone agrees that a good variety of height works especially well for Boston. We'll never have a problem of tall canyons. But, trying to make up for capped zoning with too dense 'buzzcut' blocks and too much consistency suffers with a lack of design diversity. When combined with our narrow streets, even 200-300' buildings produce less-desirable canyons."
 
Re: South Station Tower

ICYMI, in yesterday's Globe, by Jon Chesto:

Is Massport land deal a precursor to South Station expansion?

The Massachusetts Port Authority has engineered an unusual deal to expand its vast South Boston holdings, one that could have a big effect on the city’s future.

Massport’s board last week authorized a swap with the US Army: The port authority gets four acres off E and Summer streets, next to a 12-acre Massport site. In return, Massport pays $10 million to $15 million to construct an 8,000-square-foot building for the Army out at Fort Devens. Massport doesn’t get the extra land until the structure is done.

But this could just be a precursor to a more complex property swap aimed at expanding South Station ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top