The Economics of Building in Boston, Part 2

^I believe the major tenant you're talking about is Wellington Management Co. They will probably fill up the whole building (something tells me they're following in SSgA's footsteps...)
 
The Globe said:
Office rents reach dizzying heights
$100-a-square-foot deals could be taste of what's to come as demand tightens


By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | February 22, 2008

For the first time in almost a decade, office rents in downtown Boston have moved above the eye-popping $100-a-square-foot mark.

So far just a few well-heeled companies have agreed to pay three-digit rates for their offices, involving relatively small amounts of space on the upper floors of some of Boston's trophy towers. Executives in the real estate industry predict that, with demand for high-quality space exceeding the available supply, more companies will pay up for such offices.

"You will see more deals done above $100 a foot," said James R. Brady, director at the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts Inc. "It's not going to be the norm, but it's going in that direction."

The $100 price is the peak for a tight Boston office market where rents have been rising rapidly. Owners of several top-quality towers are now asking for annual rents in the range of $80-$95 a square foot; the average asking price in class A buildings now is about $67 a square foot - up from a low of $38 in 2003, when there were vacant floors galore.

The last time rents tipped above $100 a square foot was in 2000, according to the real estate firm Jones Lang LaSalle, and involved just a few leases that were signed right before the office real estate market started a steep decline. Jones Lang LaSalle represents the Blackstone Group, the largest office landlord in the city, at two of its buildings.

Even amid warning signs the economy is at risk of sliding into recession, local real estate executives said demand for office space in Boston right now is so strong that already-low vacancy rates are dropping - and rents are rising correspondingly.

"The fundamentals of supply and demand are such that really good space is scarce," said Ted Oatis, a principal of Chiofaro Company, developers of the International Place.

The last new office to open in Boston was in 2004. Although there are a number of buildings under construction or well-along in development, including projects at Fan Pier, Russia Wharf, and Two Financial Center in the Leather District, local real estate brokers expect space at these locations to be absorbed quickly.

Among the companies that have signed leases for $100 a square foot or more is Barclays Global Investors, which added about 2,900 square feet of space to its Boston offices on the 44th floor of One International Place.

Also at One Post Office Square, Saracen Energy Partners LP, a Houston-based investment firm, signed a lease for about 3,300 square feet on the 38th floor, at an average price of $100 per foot. And Four Winds Capital Management paid a little over $100 a square foot for about 1,500 feet of additional space last year at 60 State St.

The companies either declined to comment or could not be reached for comment. Indeed, few others in downtown Boston's business and real estate communities would talk publicly about busting the $100 rent threshold. Landlords who are getting it don't want to be seen as bragging, and tenants - never inclined to talk about how much their paying in downtown rents - are especially reluctant to acknowledge they're paying top dollar.

Several real estate brokers said the tenants who paid the $100 price needed to renew leases or add more space but didn't want to go to the expense and trouble of moving. Just outfitting new office space from scratch can cost $120 per square foot for a financial firm, and even more for some white-shoe law firms, according to a recent study.

Local executives agree that the higher rents can be attributed in large part to "the Blackstone effect." That's a reference to the Blackstone Group, which bought the nation's largest commercial real estate portfolio about a year ago from Equity Office Properties Trust. The deal included the Boston buildings One Post Office Square and 60 State St. among about a dozen downtown.

"They came in and they raised rents overnight 20 percent," said Mark Roopenian, director of leasing for Chiofaro Co., which co-owns and manages the two International Place towers. "God bless them."

That had the effect of showing other landlords what prices the market would bear.

"When Blackstone took over, there was a decisive change in the tone of the market," said Oatis, Roopenian's colleague at Chiofaro. "They've got to be credited for being aggressive in their leasing efforts."

Oatis and Roopenian refused to comment on whether their firm has rented space at International Place for more than $100 a square foot. The building is one of the city's premier office locations and commands among the highest rents.

Andrew J. Maher, managing director at the Blackstone-owned Equity Office, said he and his colleagues have been amused by the "Blackstone effect" term.

"It seems to be a term coined from some of the brokers as a negative phrase," he said.

"Our strategy is to take some very well-located buildings," Maher said, "and invest some substantial money in them," including at least $50 million into four downtown towers. "We're finding tenants are willing to pay up for those spaces because of the quality of life and the recruiting tool it provides for them."

The rent spike also comes as the investment market for commercial properties has slowed, part of the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis that has led to a shortage of lending for real estate in general.

David A. Martel, executive director of Cushman & Wakefield, acknowledged that the Boston rental market appears at odds with other economic trends.

There's a lot of bad news in the economy, and it's hard to ignore it," Martel said. But he said many firms in downtown Boston are financially healthy and are seeking additional space. "When you look at the requirements in the marketplace, out of the 16 top companies, 13 are growing," Martel said.

Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.
Link
 
hey! some positive news... if true, then the office buildings currently proposed or in early construction process should go through even given the tough financial times... if investors know the rents are huge, which I'm sure they already knew, they will build, and firms will invest in Boston. gives me some hope SST will get built which I was really starting to doubt. and the 1000 footer could happen as well. If you build it, they will come, and obviously there's demand if rents are this high so all this talk about who is going to fill these new office spaces is hogwash, it wont be a problem
 
Bankers & Tradesman said:
Builders, Architects Oppose Creation of Individual Community Building Codes
By Aglaia Pikounis
Reporter


Builders and architects are pushing lawmakers to strike a section of the much-touted energy bill that they say will increase construction costs, cause confusion in the industry and hurt economic development.

A provision in the legislation would enable communities to establish and enforce their own building codes on both new and existing buildings, they say. Currently, all structures are constructed under one mandatory uniform building code.

?If [contractors and designers] had to comply with 351 cities? and towns? building codes, there would be chaos,? said Paul Moriarty, a Norwell attorney and code consultant. ?There?s no way they?d be able to do it. It would stop them from doing work up here.?

Separate versions of the legislation were passed by the House and Senate, and a conference committee is hashing out the differences. The legislation is intended to reduce energy consumption and promote alternative energy sources.

Those in the construction industry oppose a section in the Senate version that would enable cities and towns to set up green communities. As part of that, towns would be able to create and impose building codes on new and existing properties that ?will assist green communities in achieving their community-based goals and objectives.?

?The whole point of the state building code is there?s one book that we all go to that dictates everything from how high a doorknob should be to ? how to build exterior walls,? said John Nunnari, who works at HMFH Architects in Cambridge.

Nunnari said under Massachusetts law, communities already are allowed to petition the state Building Board of Regulations and Standards, or BBRS, if they want to adopt a more restrictive regulation that isn?t in the building code. ?If they wanted every new building to be built with grass on top of the roof, then the city or town could go to the board and make the case that it?s a regulation they want in their town,? he said.

If there is no consistency in building standards from one town to another, the cost of construction and design services will rise, opponents argue.

Nunnari, a member of the Boston Society of Architects? Legislative Affairs Committee, worries that it could discourage development because developers would find it easier to build in states with consistent building regulations.

?We don?t want to make Massachusetts unique in the sense that we have 351 building codes. We want one building code, and that code should be the same here as it is in California or Arizona,? he said.

If each town could create their own building standards, ?builders wouldn?t know how to prepare for that,? said Norwell Building Inspector Tim Fitzgerald.

?We want one unified code,? added Fitzgerald, who is president of the Southeastern Massachusetts Building Officials Association.

A ?Fragmented? System

The legislation could set the state back 35 years to a time when the state had a costly and outdated building regulatory system, according to critics. It wasn?t until 1972 that a state building code commission, which eventually became known as the BBRS, was established. The first statewide code was adopted in 1975.

?The consequences of returning to a fragmented building regulatory system such as existed prior to 1972 could be devastating to the commonwealth and include confusion in the design and construction industry, added time and delay in the design and construction of buildings, increased cost of construction to businesses and potential homebuyers, uneven code enforcement, a weakening of public safety standards, and arbitrary approval or denial of the use of certain materials or construction methods,? the Massachusetts Building Code Alliance wrote in a letter to legislators.

The alliance is a coalition of contractors, designers and material suppliers that includes the Massachusetts Society of Professional Engineers, Home Builders Association of Massachusetts and Boston Society of Architects.

The commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety Thomas G. Gatzunis also has concerns.

Gatzunis sent a letter to Sen. Stephen C. Panagiotakis, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, noting that under state law only people who are code-trained and certified can enforce the building code. The section at issue would empower green communities to determine who enforces the local code, according to Gatzunis.

?There are no requirements or other qualifiers and therefore regulators who are not properly trained may be authorized to enforce the code. This poses a significant public safety issue,? he wrote in the letter.

Designers and contractors also are troubled by another section that would require the BBRS to fully adopt the latest International Energy Conservation Code. They say the section legislates the adoption of a particular building code and appears to prohibit the BBRS from making any changes.

?Essentially, by doing that, you?re stuck with the International Energy Conservation Code and you?re not able to amend it in any meaningful way,? Nunnari said. ?You shouldn?t be legislating the building code regulations.?

Nunnari said regulations are easier to change, and anyone can petition the board for regulatory change but it must be science-based. ?The legislative process isn?t always based on strong science. It?s often based on public opinion,? he said.
NLA
 

Back
Top