Waterside Place 1A | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

FortPointGuy said:
A few years ago I went to a Seaport Square Parcel A & B community meeting and Tom Hynes let it slip that the buildings were going to be built "condo-quality" to allow for flexibility to go condo if the market was leaning that way. I'm sure he isn't the only developer with such plans.
Click to expand...

For the record John Hynes isn't a developer at Seaport Square (aside from Innovation Center). He and partners own/owned Seaport Square lots and associated development rights for the 23-acre tract.

Seaport and Fort Point developers have less flexibility in pricing than others. Quite a few developers paid (and continue to pay) a premium for vacant lots and/or existing buildings purchased along with pre-approved development rights for new construction, rooftops, infills, etc. In other words, there is significant profit-taking by speculators brokering development rights before a shovel hits the ground.

I've been raising this issue for years, questioning the impacts of BRA-supported speculation, both on construction cost and price of resulting rents/mortgages. It's not clear to me what risk the speculators are taking to justify having portfolios pumped with BRA approvals and then sitting on portfolios, flipping lots and mothballed buildings without developing anything.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Things that suck: cops who are paid too much, firefighters who are paid too much, city employees in general, state employees in general, Detroit, Chicago, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the Federal Reserve, quantitative easing, Ponzi schemes, unions, and being DEAD BROKE.

I will keep this list handy, and update it in each thread where these pertinent issues are raised in the discussion of luxury condos or other related developments. Please add to it as you see fit.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

maybe the rain helps
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Thanks for the old photos of East Berlin.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Sicilian said:
For the record John Hynes isn't a developer at Seaport Square (aside from Innovation Center). He and partners own/owned Seaport Square lots and associated development rights for the 23-acre tract.

Seaport and Fort Point developers have less flexibility in pricing than others. Quite a few developers paid (and continue to pay) a premium for vacant lots and/or existing buildings purchased along with pre-approved development rights for new construction, rooftops, infills, etc. In other words, there is significant profit-taking by speculators brokering development rights before a shovel hits the ground.

I've been raising this issue for years, questioning the impacts of BRA-supported speculation, both on construction cost and price of resulting rents/mortgages. It's not clear to me what risk the speculators are taking to justify having portfolios pumped with BRA approvals and then sitting on portfolios, flipping lots and mothballed buildings without developing anything.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the negative impact on costs, I'm not sure if there is legally anything that can be done to stop this. Speculation and flipping is generally considered part and parcel of real estate investment. It's no different than buying property in Framingham for X dollars - getting PZC approval for a strip mall - and then selling the land to a strip mall developer for X plus 15 percent dollars. Development approvals are tied to properties, not owners - and there is certainly an expense to gaining approval for a development.

I'm not a lawyer, but forbidding the sale of properties or requiring developers to put up buildings before selling parcels probably wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You can set an expiration date on land use approvals, provided they are reasonable. I'm not sure if Mass. has a blanket expiration date, but I know NY and Conn. are 5 years.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Arborway said:
Thanks for the old photos of East Berlin.
Click to expand...

These pictures just keep getting worse. It is really hard to fathom that multiple levels of people, spending great sums of money, ever came to conclusion that "yeah that looks good, lets go with that scheme." Apparently none of them are familiar with the old adage "white elephant."
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

HalcyonEra said:
These pictures just keep getting worse. It is really hard to fathom that multiple levels of people, spending great sums of money, ever came to conclusion that "yeah that looks good, lets go with that scheme." Apparently none of them are familiar with the old adage "white elephant."
Click to expand...

Right.

It makes a lot more sense if you assume that they were looking at a spreadsheet, not a rendering.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

On the (extremely minor) plus side, it does look like they finally completed the missing portion of the crown up top.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

I wouldn't let anybody involved with this project ever build anything in this city again. Go take your ambitions to Hartford CT.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

TheRifleman said:
I wouldn't let anybody involved with this project ever build anything in this city again. Go take your ambitions to Hartford CT.
Click to expand...

Hartford wishes it could have a building like this going up right now.

FWIW....that view isn't going to be permanent. There will be another builiding on the adjacent rear lot sometime in the future. Not defending the architecture, just stating a reason why it was probably given that treatment.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

jdrinboston said:
Hartford wishes it could have a building like this going up right now.

FWIW....that view isn't going to be permanent. There will be another builiding on the adjacent rear lot sometime in the future. Not defending the architecture, just stating a reason why it was probably given that treatment.
Click to expand...

There may be another building to shield the view from the distance but I would think long and hard about leasing any space which faces that disgusting facade. The price better be right.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

jdrinboston said:
Hartford wishes it could have a building like this going up right now.

FWIW....that view isn't going to be permanent. There will be another builiding on the adjacent rear lot sometime in the future. Not defending the architecture, just stating a reason why it was probably given that treatment.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when we have a Lifer Mayor in office for 20 terms and let 2nd or in this case 3rd rate developers- develop what should be a WORLD CLASS city.

And a BRA Agency which only represents Politics agendas not actual developments or the taxpayers in the city of Boston.
 
Last edited:
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

TheRifleman said:
This is what happens when we have a Lifer Mayor in office for 20 terms and let 2nd or in this case 3rd rate developers- develop what should be a WORLD CLASS city.

And a BRA Agency which only represents Politics agendas not actual developments in the city of Boston.
Click to expand...

The people who did Waterside Place also did the Seaport World Trade Center and World Trade Center West, which I actually think is a pretty handsome building. They obviously missed the mark on this one.

Does anyone know what the BRA's legal standing is regarding aesthetics? Can they actually mandate certainl design elements or material quality or are they largely confined to height limits, density ratios, parking quotas? I know there have been examples of developers making aesthetic changes to buildings at the mayors behest (111 huntington avenue), but were those instances of developers just trying to "play nice" with the city. Had the BRA rejected that building and cited the roof line, could the developers have sued and gotten a court to compel an approval on the grounds that the BRA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious." (That's the precise wording in Conn.'s land use laws)
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

jdrinboston said:
Regardless of the negative impact on costs, I'm not sure if there is legally anything that can be done to stop this. Speculation and flipping is generally considered part and parcel of real estate investment. It's no different than buying property in Framingham for X dollars - getting PZC approval for a strip mall - and then selling the land to a strip mall developer for X plus 15 percent dollars. Development approvals are tied to properties, not owners - and there is certainly an expense to gaining approval for a development.

I'm not a lawyer, but forbidding the sale of properties or requiring developers to put up buildings before selling parcels probably wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You can set an expiration date on land use approvals, provided they are reasonable. I'm not sure if Mass. has a blanket expiration date, but I know NY and Conn. are 5 years.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what the approvals are. Variances run with the land whereas Special Permits generally automatically lapse within 2 years of approval if construction has not started (without a showing of good cause for the delay), although that time frame may be shorter. A problem with a number of these developments is that they are developed in PDA's, which are zoning overlay districts that allow "as of right" construction, and which constitute zoning changes that again run with the land.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

Hutchison said:
It all depends on what the approvals are. Variances run with the land whereas Special Permits generally automatically lapse within 2 years of approval if construction has not started (without a showing of good cause for the delay), although that time frame may be shorter. A problem with a number of these developments is that they are developed in PDA's, which are zoning overlay districts that allow "as of right" construction, and which constitute zoning changes that again run with the land.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight.

Is there a way for a city to prohibit a developer from selling or "flipping" property in the PDA? If the PDA rides with the land, that sounds like something that would get tossed out of court fairly quickly.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

jdrinboston said:
Does anyone know what the BRA's legal standing is regarding aesthetics? Can they actually mandate certainl design elements or material quality or are they largely confined to height limits, density ratios, parking quotas? I know there have been examples of developers making aesthetic changes to buildings at the mayors behest (111 huntington avenue), but were those instances of developers just trying to "play nice" with the city. Had the BRA rejected that building and cited the roof line, could the developers have sued and gotten a court to compel an approval on the grounds that the BRA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious." (That's the precise wording in Conn.'s land use laws)
Click to expand...

Yes, the BRA has the "boston civic design commission" which is part of the Article 80 review:

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/urban-design/boston-civic-design-commission (I find it ironic that the Boston Civic Design Commission web page features a rendering of Waterside Place on the home page!!)

God knows what they have been up to over the last few years. In my layman opinion, it does not appear any meaningful design review occurs at the BRA. One story from a few years ago, the Hotel Commonwealth obliterated maybe a dozen or so brick rows in Kenmore Square. While under construction it was hidden under scaffolding and a tarp. When the scaffolding and the tarp were removed, people were outraged regarding the aesthetics of the facade. It looked nothing like the rendering and the press was on the story. The BRA told the developer to make alterations and the the developer spent millions changing elements of the facade to placate the BRA. The end result was improvements to the facade but the final result is still no great shakes.
 
Re: Waterside Place | 505 Congress Street | Seaport

commuter guy said:
Yes, the BRA has the "boston civic design commission" which is part of the Article 80 review:

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/urban-design/boston-civic-design-commission (I find it ironic that the Boston Civic Design Commission web page features a rendering of Waterside Place on the home page!!)

God knows what they have been up to over the last few years. In my layman opinion, it does not appear any meaningful design review occurs at the BRA. One story from a few years ago, the Hotel Commonwealth obliterated maybe a dozen or so brick rows in Kenmore Square. While under construction it was hidden under scaffolding and a tarp. When the scaffolding and the tarp were removed, people were outraged regarding the aesthetics of the facade. It looked nothing like the rendering and the press was on the story. The BRA told the developer to make alterations and the the developer spent millions changing elements of the facade to placate the BRA. The end result was improvements to the facade but the final result is still no great shakes.
Click to expand...

Now that is ironic. I must say it looks a lot better on that site, appearing to be black or gray. Windows look a lot smaller as built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top