Lrfox
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,695
- Reaction score
- 291
Anyone want to live in the Last Tenament? $1,600 seems like a decent deal: https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/469710384037693/
Yiiiikes. Rip out all that ACT. Not sure there's anything less appealing to me that ACT in a residence.Anyone want to live in the Last Tenament? $1,600 seems like a decent deal: https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/469710384037693/
I don't know... popcorn ceilings are pretty brutal too.Yiiiikes. Rip out all that ACT. Not sure there's anything less appealing to me that ACT in a residence.
Cool find though.
You got me browsing and found this related unit inside an old cathedral in Southie. https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/729279544684328/
ACT? Not familiar with that acronym in this context. Something to do with the drop ceiling or wood paneling?Yiiiikes. Rip out all that ACT. Not sure there's anything less appealing to me that ACT in a residence.
Cool find though.
You got me browsing and found this related unit inside an old cathedral in Southie. https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/729279544684328/
Nothing fishy. The residences aren’t the only revenue source. The roof is leased to Verizon for communications equipment/antennas and there are large billboards on either side of the building.Something is very fishy here.
Whoever is renting this out for $1,600/month can get a LOT more by selling this last man standing building to a developer.
Is this some some of social/political thing? Are there financal backers with an agenda????
The building as a whole is owned by a realty trust. The residential units aren’t individually owned condos.Do you have any reason to suspect the owner/landlord of this one, particular unit owns the entire building?
Acoustic ceiling tiles.ACT? Not familiar with that acronym in this context. Something to do with the drop ceiling or wood paneling?
My issue is not they the landlord isnt getting ANY revenue currently.Nothing fishy. The residences aren’t the only revenue source. The roof is leased to Verizon for communications equipment/antennas and there are large billboards on either side of the building.
Maybe its as simple as they haven't gotten an offer yet or all the developers are scared off by the protracted neighborhood battle over the historical nature of this building.There has to be a back story.
Absolutely.Maybe its as simple as they haven't gotten an offer yet or all the developers are scared off by the protracted neighborhood battle over the historical nature of this building.
Could also be that they're waiting on something else to drop like the O'Neil getting sold and the city being able to merge parcels. They may just have a pile of money and able to wait.
The current owner bought it in 2014. This isn’t a case of some long term West Ender holding out for a mega payday or to spite the NIMBYs(what an imagination!). For what they paid($1.55m) I think this may actually be a very lucrative property. If your hypothesis was accurate, that this would somehow be an impediment to future development, then a large developer or an institutional property owner would undoubtedly have snapped it up and probably for considerably more money.My issue is not they the landlord isnt getting ANY revenue currently.
It’s that the landlord could get a helluva lot MORE by simply selling this last obstacle to a billion dollar development than simply some billboard and roof
leasing revenue (not to mention $1,600/month 1 br 1 ba apartments - you can get that in Roxbury). North Station real estate is probably one of the most prime on the east coast right now.
There has to be a back story.
Never imagined it being a long time West End butchers family at all. It's already been established above that it is owned by a REIT. But , kmp, how could this NOT be an impediment to future development? The question comes down to is, IF a developer can build around it, what is the dollar value ofThe current owner bought it in 2014. This isn’t a case of some long term West Ender holding out for a mega payday or to spite the NIMBYs(what an imagination!). For what they paid($1.55m) I think this may actually be a very lucrative property. If your hypothesis was accurate, that this would somehow be an impediment to future development, then a large developer or an institutional property owner would undoubtedly have snapped it up and probably for considerably more money.