"The Last Tenement" Discussion | 42 Lomasney Way | West End

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????
 
Do you have any reason to suspect the owner/landlord of this one, particular unit owns the entire building?
 
shmessy said:
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????
Click to expand...

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.


chrisbrat said:
Do you have any reason to suspect the owner/landlord of this one, particular unit owns the entire building?
Click to expand...

The building as a whole is owned by a realty trust. The residential units aren’t individually owned condos.

Benson said:
ACT? Not familiar with that acronym in this context. Something to do with the drop ceiling or wood paneling?
Click to expand...

Acoustic ceiling tiles.
 
Last edited:
kmp1284 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shmessy said:
There has to be a back story.
Click to expand...

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.
 
meddlepal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But just look at that parcel. Has there been any parcel in Boston that is simply THAT stick-out-like-a-sore thumb conspicuous?

The fact that they are advertising a $1,600/month apartment is definitely quirky. Are they purposely doing this for tax reasons? Maybe the owner is pissed at the neighborhood NIMBYism. Either way, would be a fascinating backstory to it all.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kmp1284 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 of
1) the extra construction expense of building around/safety for the current building and
2) the lost square footage of what that last tenement currently occupies

Fundamentally, if that lost value of building "around" (if the tenement stays as is) is $40 million, then it's probably in the developer's best interest to offer slightly less to buy it and demo.

Obviously, the $1.55 million (the cost of an average new home in Newton) was a brilliant purchase in 2014. Fascinating to watch the dance play out now.
 
Last edited:
Short of a major road and tunnel reconfiguration along with the sale or long term lease of the surrounding MBTA parcels I don’t see how this is of any value to a developer, at least not in the present market or even the market of five years ago. It’s also an important historic asset that some may wish to preserve.
 
I scrolled this thread to see if the following article had already been posted and I didn't notice it (apologies if I missed it).
Anyway, this gives an excellent history of this parcel, including its changes in ownership over the years:

www.bostonglobe.com

Boston’s last tenement an island awash in modernity - The Boston Globe

www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

What's interesting is that there were actually a row of these remaining after the main urban renewal initiative, but it was a second wave of eminent domain circa 1990 that brought this one's neighbors down in preparation for the big dig-related construction and submerged green line. According to the article, the MBTA was simply trying to save money by "proceeding surgically" with property acquisition for the Green Line project (though some are wondering if the then-owner's mafia ties protected it by making acquisition not worth the hassle).

In any case, the article implies that the MBTA owns (some) of the land around it, so anything strategic here to create a larger parcel would likely need to involve them.
 
B4336853-CCCF-4AA9-89EF-073708BC642B.jpeg

I would keep that building if we could mock it with something crazy like this from Michael Sorkin. http://www.sorkinstudio.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top