The Benjamin & VIA (née One Seaport Square) | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

[BeeLine]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

https://flic.kr/p/KUw7VQ

 

[stick n move]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

 

[BostonDrew]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Just got the following marketing email for The Benjamin:

"Thank you for your interest in the most exclusive new apartment community coming to the Boston Seaport in early 2017, The Benjamin!

The Benjamin is located in Seaport Square, Boston’s new waterfront destination shopping, dining and recreation venue. This 24-7 neighborhood spans over 20 pedestrian-friendly city blocks and 23 acres of world-class office and research space, art and cultural institutions and gorgeous waterfront parks and outdoor living. The Benjamin is a quick walk to Boston’s financial district, with easy access to the Silver Line and a short ride to the airport.

This uber-exclusive, landmark high-rise community will feature 6,000 square feet of artistic rooftop amenities and green space, fluid, multi-use resident social lounges, a unique approach to wellness and fitness with indoor and outdoor high-tech equipment and virtual fitness and nutrition classes, as well as top-notch concierge services.

Each home will boast timeless quality, eco-chic smart features, ultra-modern kitchens and baths, and dramatic Boston waterfront and city skyline views."

 

[tysmith95]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

This isn't truly 24/7 until alcohol sales are allowed past 2am. But I digress.

 

[cden4]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

"uber-exclusive", "fluid lounges", "VR fitness"? Is this what the Millennials are asking for now? I don't even know what these things mean...

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

"uber-exclusive", "fluid lounges", "VR fitness"? Is this what the Millennials are asking for now? I don't even know what these things mean...

Many/most Millennials can't afford to live here; this is just basic "luxe" speak.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I've said this before, but I'd love to see the way in which buildings are marketed be regulated. If a developer uses terms like "exclusive" and "top-notch" (and even "luxury") in their marketing campaigns then they should be required to contribute more to affordable housing funds / set aside more affordable units.

Maybe by nudging developers away from marketing exclusively to the rich we can also push them away from building exclusively for the rich.

 

[dshoost88]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I've said this before, but I'd love to see the way in which buildings are marketed be regulated. If a developer uses terms like "exclusive" and "top-notch" (and even "luxury") in their marketing campaigns then they should be required to contribute more to affordable housing funds / set aside more affordable units.

Maybe by nudging developers away from marketing exclusively to the rich we can also push them away from building exclusively for the rich.

I politely disagree with some of your sentiments. It annoys me that people think about new buildings in terms of percentages instead of raw numbers, or they overlook the fact that 'luxury buildings' like Benjamin and Via (One Seaport Square) have affordable units in them.

Between the two approved towers, there are 832 units getting built. Of those, 96 are set aside as 'affordable', and an additional 96 are 'innovative units'--ones that are smaller square footage and at a more palatable price point. When the other 640 units are listed in 2017, their prices will reflect market demand and get fully rented within a year... mark my words. The demand is there. Period.

Even if we discount the innovative units, there are nearly 100 affordably-priced homes opening next year at One Seaport Square--arguably the hottest neighborhood in Boston. Please let that sink in for a moment.

Affordable units are neither marketed nor applied for by conventional means; applicants must meet income guidelines to qualify for affordable housing, and must enter a housing lottery.

Between the public realm improvements and employing thousands in the construction, retail, and accommodation/food industries upon completion, I think the developer is entitled to market their apartments however they deem fit to get the homes rented (while complying with the law, of course).

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I politely disagree with some of your sentiments. It annoys me that people think about new buildings in terms of percentages instead of raw numbers, or they overlook the fact that 'luxury buildings' like Benjamin and Via (One Seaport Square) have affordable units in them.

Between the two approved towers, there are 832 units getting built. Of those, 96 are set aside as 'affordable', and an additional 96 are 'innovative units'--ones that are smaller square footage and at a more palatable price point. When the other 640 units are listed in 2017, their prices will reflect market demand and get fully rented within a year... mark my words. The demand is there. Period.

Even if we discount the innovative units, there are nearly 100 affordably-priced homes opening next year at One Seaport Square--arguably the hottest neighborhood in Boston. Please let that sink in for a moment.

Affordable units are neither marketed nor applied for by conventional means; applicants must meet income guidelines to qualify for affordable housing, and must enter a housing lottery.

Between the public realm improvements and employing thousands in the construction, retail, and accommodation/food industries upon completion, I think the developer is entitled to market their apartments however they deem fit to get the homes rented (while complying with the law, of course).

Right, I understand all of this. But my "regulate the marketing campaigns approach" is not intended to push developers to include more "affordable" units, it is intended to push developers to build cheaper "market" units.

My main issue with the way developments are approached is that each building is seen as having two distinct components: "market" and "affordable". The "market" units are sold/rented at market price and the "affordable" units (a terrible term, as all markets that are rented are by definition "affordable" to their occupants) are handed out by lottery. Just about all housing policy in the city fits into this framework, and as a result it perpetuates this dynamic. Because "market" buildings are required to have "affordable" set asides, prices on those "market" units stay more elevated than they would be otherwise (the cost of the affordable units to developers restricts supply). Every policy that creates "affordable" units by limiting overall supply ends up pushing "market" prices upwards. Thus, the rich can afford the "exclusive" "luxury" "market" units and the extremely lucky non-rich get an "affordable" unit handed to them. The not-so-lucky non-rich (i.e., nearly all of the non-rich) get largely left out. Housing lotteries are no more a solution to housing affordability than regular lotteries are a solution to income inequality.

I'm a free market guy, and when I see public policy perpetuating this dynamic it makes me squirm. The goal of housing policy should be to bring down the price of market units, not push up the price of market units as long as subsidies are given to a lucky few. Regulating the way in which buildings are marketed could have this effect. Forcing developers to use more down-market terms in the way they present their buildings can blunt some of the luxury premium paid for them, while at the same time not discouraging developers from building more units in the first place. This approach is inspired a bit by some concepts in behavioral economics, using slight nudges to change the way goods are perceived instead of strictly regulating what prices are paid. And if one doesn't believe that marketing has any effect on unit price, then why are these apartments marketed this way in the first place?

This sort of marketing regulation would surely have much more of an effect on new developments in more out-laying areas than it would at One Seaport Square (where building size is governed by the FAA and the location demands a price premium). If a developer at a location like Seaport Square wants to say their building is "exclusive", then they should be forced to pay for it. But if a developer in say, Dorchester, decides to not present their market units as "luxury" then they should be rewarded.

 

[fattony]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

People aren't stupid. The only "marketing term" that is relevant is the price. You can call a dump "luxury" or a palace "afforable." None of that matters one bit. Its only the price that matters. The only relief for high prices in Greater Boston is loosening constraints on supply.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

People aren't stupid. The only "marketing term" that is relevant is the price. You can call a dump "luxury" or a palace "afforable." None of that matters one bit. Its only the price that matters. The only relief for high prices in Greater Boston is loosening constraints on supply.

Then what's the point of marketing at all? If none of that matters, why do developers have marketing budgets in the first place? Why do they market separate lines of apartments differently and target them at different price points (see: Avalon Bay's "AVA" and "Avalon" apartments)? Why are highly educated, multi-lingual, and culturally sophisticated agents employed to market units to out-of-town investors? Is this all just misguided, irrational behavior??

I agree that the best way to bring down prices is to increase supply. In the meantime, however, the way in which a building is marketed can affect demand. Marketing can shape the potential customer base that evaluates the product and the way in which it is perceived by the public. This affects willingness to pay and thus price. History is full of examples of marketing changes and restrictions having huge effects on the quantity and price of goods sold (see: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).

 

[jl326]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I agree with fattony. As a free market guy, supply and demand is the key driver here. There's also little incentive for anyone to market non-premium units in one of the hotter areas of Boston (and with water/city views to boot). It just wouldn't make any sense.

Right, I understand all of this. But my "regulate the marketing campaigns approach" is not intended to push developers to include more "affordable" units, it is intended to push developers to build cheaper "market" units.

My main issue with the way developments are approached is that each building is seen as having two distinct components: "market" and "affordable". The "market" units are sold/rented at market price and the "affordable" units (a terrible term, as all markets that are rented are by definition "affordable" to their occupants) are handed out by lottery. Just about all housing policy in the city fits into this framework, and as a result it perpetuates this dynamic. Because "market" buildings are required to have "affordable" set asides, prices on those "market" units stay more elevated than they would be otherwise (the cost of the affordable units to developers restricts supply). Every policy that creates "affordable" units by limiting overall supply ends up pushing "market" prices upwards. Thus, the rich can afford the "exclusive" "luxury" "market" units and the extremely lucky non-rich get an "affordable" unit handed to them. The not-so-lucky non-rich (i.e., nearly all of the non-rich) get largely left out. Housing lotteries are no more a solution to housing affordability than regular lotteries are a solution to income inequality.

I'm a free market guy, and when I see public policy perpetuating this dynamic it makes me squirm. The goal of housing policy should be to bring down the price of market units, not push up the price of market units as long as subsidies are given to a lucky few. Regulating the way in which buildings are marketed could have this effect. Forcing developers to use more down-market terms in the way they present their buildings can blunt some of the luxury premium paid for them, while at the same time not discouraging developers from building more units in the first place. This approach is inspired a bit by some concepts in behavioral economics, using slight nudges to change the way goods are perceived instead of strictly regulating what prices are paid. And if one doesn't believe that marketing has any effect on unit price, then why are these apartments marketed this way in the first place?

This sort of marketing regulation would surely have much more of an effect on new developments in more out-laying areas than it would at One Seaport Square (where building size is governed by the FAA and the location demands a price premium). If a developer at a location like Seaport Square wants to say their building is "exclusive", then they should be forced to pay for it. But if a developer in say, Dorchester, decides to not present their market units as "luxury" then they should be rewarded.

People aren't stupid. The only "marketing term" that is relevant is the price. You can call a dump "luxury" or a palace "afforable." None of that matters one bit. Its only the price that matters. The only relief for high prices in Greater Boston is loosening constraints on supply.

 

[jl326]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Then what's the point of marketing at all? If none of that matters, why do developers have marketing budgets in the first place? Why do they market separate lines of apartments differently and target them at different price points (see: Avalon Bay's "AVA" and "Avalon" apartments)? Why are highly educated, multi-lingual, and culturally sophisticated agents employed to market units to out-of-town investors? Is this all just misguided, irrational behavior??

I agree that the best way to bring down prices is to increase supply. In the meantime, however, the way in which a building is marketed can affect demand. Marketing can shape the potential customer base that evaluates the product and the way in which it is perceived by the public. This affects willingness to pay and thus price. History is full of examples of marketing changes and restrictions having huge effects on the quantity and price of goods sold (see: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).

...To build awareness, I would assume. Just because there is demand (and there's plenty of it), it doesn't mean they know exactly where to look. That's where the marketing comes in. I don't think it's much different than how housing has been marketed for years and years.

To take a similar example outside of developers and the city, consider individual homeowners in the suburbs. Housing in desirable neighborhoods and good school systems get snapped up pretty quickly. But homeowners/sellers still market their homes and highlight all the "amazing" features in the listing, right?

 

[whighlander]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I agree with fattony. As a free market guy, supply and demand is the key driver here. There's also little incentive for anyone to market non-premium units in one of the hotter areas of Boston (and with water/city views to boot). It just wouldn't make any sense.

jL -- Simple solution reduce the cost of building and you will get more "affordable" market priced units

Developers charge what they do both because people will pay and also because of the costs incurred to build, market and make a profit on the project

So lower the cost of regulations of all manner [e.g. ridiculous union work rules, requirements for only union labor] -- reduce the number of consultants that one needs to hire to get through the approval morAss and you will get more units affordable to the typical renter or buyer of housing

Boston should revise the Byzantine Zoning Code and create a simple zoning for residential development -- under this simple code the approval process would be drastically simplified and construction could begin immediately

Of course this code would not apply to MT or South Station Tower -- but if say you wanted to build 100 units of housing in a 10 story tower -- go to it

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

...To build awareness, I would assume. Just because there is demand (and there's plenty of it), it doesn't mean they know exactly where to look. That's where the marketing comes in. I don't think it's much different than how housing has been marketed for years and years.

To take a similar example outside of developers and the city, consider individual homeowners in the suburbs. Housing in desirable neighborhoods and good school systems get snapped up pretty quickly. But homeowners/sellers still market their homes and highlight all the "amazing" features in the listing, right?

...which all comes back to price. Homeowners make their houses look as good as possible so they can get as much as possible for them.

 

[jl326]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

...which all comes back to price. Homeowners make their houses look as good as possible so they can get as much as possible for them.

Right, no disagreement there.

I re-read your posts on marketing and I think we're actually generally on the same page/side. My initial reaction to your position came after your post above about policies to "push developers to build cheaper market units." I interpreted that to suggest you wanted to push developers to build lower quality housing in the Seaport (e.g., less amenities, use lower quality materials, etc. to make units more affordable).

jL -- Simple solution reduce the cost of building and you will get more "affordable" market priced units

Developers charge what they do both because people will pay and also because of the costs incurred to build, market and make a profit on the project

So lower the cost of regulations of all manner [e.g. ridiculous union work rules, requirements for only union labor] -- reduce the number of consultants that one needs to hire to get through the approval morAss and you will get more units affordable to the typical renter or buyer of housing

Now wouldn't THAT be nice!? One could dream...

 

[shawn]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Then what's the point of marketing at all? If none of that matters, why do developers have marketing budgets in the first place? Why do they market separate lines of apartments differently and target them at different price points (see: Avalon Bay's "AVA" and "Avalon" apartments)? Why are highly educated, multi-lingual, and culturally sophisticated agents employed to market units to out-of-town investors? Is this all just misguided, irrational behavior??

I agree that the best way to bring down prices is to increase supply. In the meantime, however, the way in which a building is marketed can affect demand. Marketing can shape the potential customer base that evaluates the product and the way in which it is perceived by the public. This affects willingness to pay and thus price. History is full of examples of marketing changes and restrictions having huge effects on the quantity and price of goods sold (see: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).

JumboBuc, I've been in marketing for my entire adult career; jl326 hit it on the head - this is about building awareness among a pre-existing pool of demand, not about creating demand itself. Those out of town investors have literally a world of options available to them, and depending on where they are in the buying funnel, they may either not be aware of specific properties in Boston, or Boston itself may not be top-of-mind as an option.

Marketing can create demand, but only up to a certain price point, on a limited returns curve. Marketing can hugely influence what a user is willing to pay for FMCG goods; it can play a significant factor in influencing price elasticity for white goods and consumer electronics, and it can play a role in what people are willing to pay for cars. But for purchases which require 30 year mortgages? Marketing makes a lot less difference here.*

* The exception being of course the tiny audience segment for which a 30 year mortgage isn't needed to make a million dollar+ property purchase.

 

[Pheldy34]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Looking a nice bright blue in today's sunshine!

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

^ the 2010's tinted-glass-box-monsters swallowed the '90's brick clamshell!!

(Awesome shots from your vantage point, Pheldy, please keep 'em coming as construction continues!)

 

[atlantaden]

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Nice! Just in this picture alone, there must be 1400 new residential units plus hundreds of thousands of square feet of new retail/restaurant space. It's a new world out there, Golde!