The St Regis Residences (former Whiskey Priest site) | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

What if he knocked down half to open some space then govt garaged a tower on the other corner.
 
stellarfun said:
We may have to create the equivalent of a Godwin's Law for HT. I re-entered the debate because the ogres of CLF and Barr had migrated over to the HT project, but there is little point continuing to re-litigate in this thread a project that is now 12 years old and no further advanced than it was in 2007 when Chiofaro bought the garage for $153 million. The cost of burying the existing garage was stated by Chiofaro to be $180 million in 2014, and IIRC, that burying estimate was originally given by Ted Oatis, his late partner, several years before.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2014/0...-1b-two-tower-project-for-harbor-garage-site/

Rifleman & Rover, I leave it to you to figure how Chiofaro recovers a sunk cost of $335 million with a 900,000 square foot building. If that proves impossible, then I propose the garage be re-clad in brick, replicating the appearance of India Wharf which was on the site for many decades. Call the reclad garage a homage to Bulfinch.
Click to expand...


That math definitely doesn't work for Chiafaro. However, IIRC the HT garage lease is up in the next couple of years and then everything changes for Chiafaro with no obligation to provide that $180M+ parking anymore.

Easy to see why he is probably in no hurry.
 
Like many have stated, and i have bemoaned for 3~4 years....

No way he can do it. He needs 150,000~200,000 sq ft more.

Then he says he will try to do it.

2 years later, still no render, no pnf, pre-pnf..... nothing.
 
JANAM said:
That math definitely doesn't work for Chiafaro. However, IIRC the HT garage lease is up in the next couple of years and then everything changes for Chiafaro with no obligation to provide that $180M+ parking anymore.

Easy to see why he is probably in no hurry.
Click to expand...

The garage, designed by I M Pei Partners, was built, along with HT, on BRA land. The garage was built to replace the large surface parking lot that existed on the HT site. That way, the city did not lose parking spaces in that area when HT was built and landscaped.

IMO, Chiofaro would not propose going to the great expense of burying the existing garage if there was not some sort of requirement that he do so. One would have to check the property title to see if there was a covenant. Even if there wasn't, the city of Boston could preclude him building anything higher than 200 feet or so, if he did not replace the garage.

There are posters here who claim HT garage is a cash cow for Chiofaro. If their claim is true, that's even more reason for the city to require he replace the garage, because, again if the claim is true, the demand is obviously there.
 
Stellerfun, You sort of missed the entire point of smart developments for the overall public.

If an investor buys an investment and presents an idea to the city that will help the overall public tackle these issues---
#1 Housing Shortages
#2 Traffic Congestion
#3 Income Inequality
Its the job of the state and city agencies to investigate the idea.

The point to my post -- We have had city and state officials agencies continue to drag there feet as they cry about traffic congestion, Income inequality and housing shortages. We have a non-profit company run by nothing more than entitle rich people using money claiming open space for the public
As we have an above garage that blocks 90% of the access to the ocean in the first place continues to just sit there for a decade unable to create more housing on the transit line in the core of the city.

If the investment makes sense to an investor and it is cash flow positive there are 3 things the investor can do concerning HG
#1 Keep the garage as is
#2 Renovate the garage and add housing 200ft up (Menino Terms)
#3 Developer's original proposal

#1-#2 would be a sin and is not looking out for the better of the overall area and the public.

Chiofaro/Pru are heavily invested in this area so they most likely don't want to move forward with either #1 or #2. They would rather unlock the value for themselves and the overall public by burying this garage.

Its not okay for a non-profit company to use millions in funds to try to stop something that actually makes sense for the public or have city officials drag there feet on such a smart development then cry about these 3 factors.
#1 Housing Shortages
#2 Traffic congestion
#3 Income Inequality

If the Nonprofit companies and Political hacks really cared about the overall public why not have an overall vote/poll for the overall public not just the NIMBYS concerning what is best for the city.

No matter what. You need to flood the city with more condo units to keep the surrounding areas of Boston affordable instead of continue to pick and choose the winners.
 
stellar, its not my job to make Chiofaro's #'s work, but I keep coming back to it, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you seem to have completely disregarded the concept of leverage. As in, the city has no leverage to the alternative of that garage sitting exactly where it is until the end of time, something we all seem to agree would be a terrible outcome. Why do they have no leverage? Because using your own #'s he's making 1-2M a year in profits on the garage AND the value of the property has increased since he bought it. It would be nice if everybody would bear this in mind, but I've seen way too many groups try to claim, as you used to, that he paid too much for the garage. If you are 1) making a profit, and 2) the value has gone up since you bought the property, you by definition did not pay too much for it.

So, getting back to Rifleman's have a vote proposal, I would do this: Two alternatives go before the voters. 1) Give Chiofaro whatever easements he requires to replace the garage at a profit that makes it worthwhile to him, which means greater than the expected future earnings of the garage. Again, a very important point that most NIMBY's miss. or 2: Rejecting that the garage stays right where it is.

I also think the 3rd proposal Rifleman put forward is the most likely to happen, and its an absolute disaster for the city, which is that he builds on top of the garage taking advantage of existing zoning and laughs his ass off all the way to the bank. If that happens that garage ain't never going away....
 
I am not going to get into hypothetical constructs for which there is no provision in law: i.e., conduct a ballot referendum before approving any major new development project in Boston.

However, I will again point out that the 50 percent open space requirement placed on this proposed development was imposed by the Commonwealth, --not by CLF, not by Barr, not by Amos Hostetter. Under a predicate that representative democracy governs absolutely, this 50 percent spec represents Gov. Baker's decision, and there ought be no seeking an 'out' because one is unhappy with such a decision, in that it failed to consider x, y, or z.

As for the supposed appreciating value of the existing garage, the current assessment of that property is $115.9 million, $82 million of which represents the value of the 57,000+ sq ft of land. The assessed value is $37 million below the purchase price ten+ years ago. I'll let others opine on how close the assessed value of commercial property in downtown Boston comes to current market value.
 
stellarfun said:
I am not going to get into hypothetical constructs for which there is no provision in law: i.e., conduct a ballot referendum before approving any major new development project in Boston.

However, I will again point out that the 50 percent open space requirement placed on this proposed development was imposed by the Commonwealth, --not by CLF, not by Barr, not by Amos Hostetter.
Click to expand...


Really... laws are in place?
Chap 91 law contradicts itself-- 50 Percent open space requirement. Like I said before-- if the commonwealth follow its own laws in the first place then we would not be having a debate on existing Harbor Garage because it would be 100% open space. Instead the commonwealth completely disregarded their own chap 91 law in the first place and blocked 90% of all open space by allowing an above parking garage to be built right next to the water. How is that following your own laws? What about the IMAX-- was CHAP 91 Law in full effect then?

Its pretty hard to sit there and tell educated people that the garage is the best option for the city vs the developer's proposal.

But then our officials have the balls to cry, housing shortage, Raise property taxes, Traffic congestion, Income inequality.

Our leaders should be supporting ideas and solutions that help the overall public not suppress them.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
The assessed value is $37 million below the purchase price ten+ years ago. I'll let others opine on how close the assessed value of commercial property in downtown Boston comes to current market value.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that assessment of commercial properties in Boston, particularly parking garages, is a bit of a obtuse process. It is more based on the income potential of the garage than the resale value of the property. I am not sure how that is legal, but that is what I have heard from several garage owners in the city. Garage assessments tend to be well below the resale value of the property.
 
Rover said:
I also think the 3rd proposal Rifleman put forward is the most likely to happen, and its an absolute disaster for the city, which is that he builds on top of the garage taking advantage of existing zoning and laughs his ass off all the way to the bank. If that happens that garage ain't never going away....
Click to expand...

Existing zoning is one thing. Piling an even bigger eyesore on top of an egregious eyesore would be a non-starter under–during Article 80 review.
 
stellarfun said:
However, I will again point out that the 50 percent open space requirement placed on this proposed development was imposed by the Commonwealth, --not by CLF, not by Barr, not by Amos Hostetter. Under a predicate that representative democracy governs absolutely, this 50 percent spec represents Gov. Baker's decision, and there ought be no seeking an 'out' because one is unhappy with such a decision, in that it failed to consider x, y, or z.

As for the supposed appreciating value of the existing garage, the current assessment of that property is $115.9 million, $82 million of which represents the value of the 57,000+ sq ft of land. The assessed value is $37 million below the purchase price ten+ years ago. I'll let others opine on how close the assessed value of commercial property in downtown Boston comes to current market value.
Click to expand...

And, much like Winthrop Square, we the people can amend as needed via the legislative process if necessary in order to get rid of the garage. See, now we're getting somewhere. Either the city reaches a deal with the guy whereby he makes more money than he's making now in exchange for getting rid of ugly, waterfront blocking garage.....or the garage stays.

Regarding the value of the property you're changing your tune on the value as you yourself said in an earlier discussion it had gone up. Having said that call me extremely skeptical that ANY property in downtown Boston is worth, what 25% less than it was in the middle of a recession? That's mind boggling.
 
The assessed value in 2008, the first full year of Chiofaro ownership, was $88 million. The assessed value over the past ten years has increased by about a third.
 
I wonder if they will find anything buried in that soil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top