The Hub on Causeway (née TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

Re: TD Garden Towers

I want to punch each and every one of you in the kidneys.

Oh no!!! Type001 what are you going to do run us down with your 2013 Mercedes-Benz as Boston02124 beats us with a bat for ruining the TD Garden Towers thread?



I'm sorry
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

That's ridiculous. I would use the Bentley to do that.

Here's something that will never happen but make us all happy here. No tax breaks and let the developer add 20 floors to each building to maximize profits.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

No tax breaks, taller buildings, and also a streamlined linkage program so it's not always up for negotiation - how much can the city and neighbors get.

Oh, and throw in no affordable housing element to residential construction, but that ship sailed long ago.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

I know that's why. So make a thread in General where we can actually hash it out. Having the same damn argument in every thread where developers are requesting tax incentives is tiresome. You don't need to swoop in with your argument again and again every time there's an article about it. Or rather, please do swoop in, but swoop into a "Tax Incentives to Developers" thread that's in the General forum.

Agree x10000, and I made a thread for it:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=188026#post188026

I for one don't give a crap either way, so that will likely be my only post.

In the future, if a development may get a tax break, post the article in the approperate development thread, but take discussion about it to the new thread. Can we all agree on this ?!?!?

This way the individual building threads can stay on topic.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

I take some responsibility for starting this. Last comment: I'd rather see this not get built than have Jeremy Jacobs get tax money to build it.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

Menino to Boston Properties: Compromise on TD tower height
Thomas Grillo
Real Estate Editor
Boston Business Journal


Mayor Thomas M. Menino urged Boston Properties to lower the height of its proposed 45-story residential tower in North Station on Thursday, insisting the developer consider neighborhood concerns about setting a precedent with a skyscraper at the TD Garden.

“There has to be a compromise someplace in this development,” Menino said. “I have faith in Boston Properties to work with the community. They have been excellent in other developments in the city and they will work on this one. I believe there will be a compromise.”

Menino’s comments came following Wednesday night’s contentious meeting hosted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and attended by representatives from Boston Properties and the Boston Garden Impact Advisory Group, a 13-member panel of residents and organizations appointed by City Hall to advise the administration on the 1.8-million-square-foot project development.

While the IAG representatives praised the project’s benefits, they pushed back on the height of the tallest building, urging that the tallest building be no higher than 400 feet, or about 30 stories. The current plan cals for a tower that would peak at 600 feet.

“We are thrilled with this project, but please understand that Boston is not Toronto,” said Kathleen Ryan. “The 600-foot tower will set a precedent for our neighborhood because all the other developments coming after this will say Boston Properties got that height.”

Jane Forrestall, another IAG member, said she was dismayed that Boston Properties is still pitching a 600-foot tower despite the concerns raised about the height.

“We think it should be brought down to 400 feet as it was originally planned,” she said.

Bryan Koop, Boston Properties’ regional manager, defended the height saying while he respected the opinions of those who oppose a taller building, he noted that others in the community believe “it should be taller.”

If approved, the project will include the residential tower as well as a 20-story hotel, a 375,000-square-foot retail podium and a 25-story office building.

James Zahka, an IAG member who serves in the West End Civic Association, challenged Koop on the firm’s application for a 121A agreement that could save the company millions in taxes if the city declares the development site a “blighted area.”

“You are looking to us, people in this room who pay taxes, to enhance the profitability of your project and to enhance the bank accounts of Jeremy Jacobs of Delaware North, who has a net worth of $2.8 billion, and Mort Zuckerman of Boston Properties, who has a net worth of $2.3 billion,” he said. “I haven’t heard any reasonable explanation as to why taxpayers need to provide this. We ask you to build it on your own dime, not ours.”

In response, Koop said that Zahka is misleading the public with such statements. He said the developers are asking for a tax agreement so that they can pass the savings along to retail tenants so they will have a predictable tax amount when they take a big risk to open stores on the development.

“To say that it is going int the pockets of billionaires is completely inaccurate,” Koop said. “I’m failing to see how you are subsidizing it.”

But Zahka said that if the project pays its full share of taxes, the city’s coffers will be fuller to pay police, fireman and teachers.

“It’s not fair to us as a community and as taxpayers,” he said.

Shirley Kressel, a Back Bay resident and frequent BRA critic, asked Michael Cantalupa, Boston Properties’ senior vice president of development, to reveal how much tax relief the company is seeking.

Cantalupa said the number was being negotiated and was not known.

When Kressel suggested that the number be made public well before the project seeks approval at a BRA board meeting in December, the BRA’s project manager John Fitzgerald attempted to conclude the meeting. Last week, Fitzgerald raised eyebrows when his email to IAG members about the Wednesday night meeting warned about inviting "outsiders” and “rabble rousers” to the session.

“Let her talk,” said IAG's Ryan.

When Menino was told of the exchange, he weighed in on Fitgerald's attempt to wrap up the meeting.

“John can’t do that,” Menino said. “My feeling on this is let the community be heard. Let the community vent their issues and we will take those issues into consideration and move forward.”


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/r...ll-boston-properties-compromise.html?page=all
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

Bottom Line if you can't build it on your own dime----SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO CAN. Welcome to capitalism

What is going on now is exactly what Shirely Kressel stated.
“You are looking to us, people in this room who pay taxes, to enhance the profitability of your project and to enhance the bank accounts of Jeremy Jacobs of Delaware North, who has a net worth of $2.8 billion, and Mort Zuckerman of Boston Properties, who has a net worth of $2.3 billion,” he said. “I haven’t heard any reasonable explanation as to why taxpayers need to provide this. We ask you to build it on your own dime, not ours.”

This guy is an idiot.

“To say that it is going int the pockets of billionaires is completely inaccurate,” Koop said. “I’m failing to see how you are subsidizing it.”

They are gaming the situation against competition and other exisiting landlords by lowering their costs to their project to recruit exsisting tenants in other buildings. We are only building value in these billionaire pockets in a very low risk area.

All the Tax Breaks should be under investigation: Remember Columbus Ave Debacle and BRA Kinvely deleted thousands of emails from the hard drive and Martha Coakley looked the other way.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ad_warned_mayor_on_deleted_e_mails_last_year/
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

Millennium tower set the stage...it's the same thing...although DTX is more blighted than north station
 
Re: TD Garden Towers


If reducing the height of these buildings will make them affordable for the developer to construct without public funds, I see the point of these comments, but I doubt that. Additional height increases the developer's revenue as well as their construction costs, and if the former didn't exceed the latter they wouldn't have asked for 600' in the first place. Developers aren't in the business of improving the skyline for the skyline's sake.

With that in mind, what makes the neighborhood height-o-phobes any better than Jacobs? They're both exploiting the process for their own property values and wallet sizes.

I wish this public hearing had been used to air legitimate concerns about the precedent Boston has set for compromising its own tax revenue to get projects built. I don't see as much wrong with that as some people, but it's a trade-off that should get some airtime. This meeting, however, appears to have been hijacked by NIMBYs masquerading as concerned citizens, and I don't see what positive result that could lead to. Best case, the City pays more for less height.
 
Last edited:
Re: TD Garden Towers

Copley and Csc will have their hands out next...
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

Or the developer could just wait a few months until Menino is gone. I'm sure Walsh will approve it at 600ft. Especially since almost nobody in the northend voted for him. It's not like he is alienating his future voting block.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

So that's why Back Bay is full of 700 ft towers....oh wait....
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

Is the tax break a PILOT payment so a supermarket or retail tennant can be confident in the lease and taxes? If that's the case fine.

But you can in no way ask to lower height and not expect the hand to be stretched further. Either way, the tax break is temporarily forgone revenue, which will probably be less then what the city would give up if they took out what is a 200ft building.

Also, precedent, the neighborhood has the 400' longfellow towers there and with a good sling shot can hit downtown and the Gov't center garage. There isn't much place for towers left.

I say give them a tax break and make them build it to 800' ;)
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

If reducing the height of these buildings will make them affordable for the developer to construct without public funds, I see the point of these comments, but I doubt that. Additional height increases the developer's revenue as well as their construction costs, and if the former didn't exceed the latter they wouldn't have asked for 600' in the first place. Developers aren't in the business of improving the skyline for the skyline's sake.

.

Equilib -- basic algebra of height [obviously a simplification]

Cost of building = kX + L + F + P + R + M
where:
k == a coefficient depending on quality
X == the number of floors
L == cost of the land
F == the cost of the foundation [weakly dependent on X]
P == the cost of the "Retail Pedestal"
R == the cost of the Roof
M == the cost of the mechanicals [also weakly dependent on X]

Revenue to the developer = jX + V
where:
j == a coefficient dependent on the quality, location. views, etc.
V == the miscellaneous revenues from the Retail, Parking, etc.

Basic equation is Rev > Cost
and essentially for a given footprint area with all the rest essentially constant then -- the larger the X the larger the net value to the developer -- all other things equal

of course if the building changes as it ascends then the simple kX and jX is replaced by a sum of X(k-j) for each floor, etc.

My guess is that they'll settle for 500+ -- approaching 600 when including the mechanicals and the roof
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

A taller, thinner tower has less shadow and wind impacts than a shorter fatter tower, too bad something that simple is never mentioned in these meeting.

If the developers want tax breaks, why not ask them what they need for height and density to build without them.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

A taller, thinner tower has less shadow and wind impacts than a shorter fatter tower, too bad something that simple is never mentioned in these meeting.

If the developers want tax breaks, why not ask them what they need for height and density to build without them.

That's missing the point. These developers are rich as hell. They can build whatever they want without tax breaks. Riff's right about the fact that once Fan Pier and Millennium Tower got a handout, not one project of note will be built in Boston for a decade until the developer has at least raised a stink about getting one too.

The only way that gets fixed is if Walsh comes in and openly declares that he won't approve any development that gets a break, then backs it up in a few visible cases. Frankly, that's a pretty big risk, since the city takes a net loss if the development is abandoned vs. built with a handout, and Sun Belt cities are happy to take the investments and jobs and throw money in the faces of these developers.

Developers aren't evil people - they want to make as much money as they can. They aren't in business to maximize municipal revenue, but to maximize their own. If a city makes the statement that it will cut tax breaks for major city-altering developments as a reward for building them, any large-scale project will seize the opportunity for free cash, and the city will grow as a result.
 
Re: TD Garden Towers

“We are thrilled with this project, but please understand that Boston is not Toronto,” said Kathleen Ryan. “The 600-foot tower will set a precedent for our neighborhood because all the other developments coming after this will say Boston Properties got that height.”

"Toronto"? Seriously? Facepalm.

That's like saying that if Boston keeps building these confangled sky-scrapin' buildings we'll end up as badly off as a San Franciscee or a Seattle! So many tall buildings overwhelming us!

I guess I should be happy she didn't say "Manhattanization" (cringe).
 

Back
Top