Why are office towers on the rise again in Boston?

KentXie

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
4,185
Reaction score
744
Why are office towers on the rise again in Boston?Dormant plans to reshape the city's skyline come alive as firms feel squeezed for space
June 4, 2006


The office vacancy rate is in double digits, job growth is anemic, and Boston is a tough place to build a skyscraper. Yet a half- dozen office towers are in some stage of development, and two could go into construction around the end of the year.

``There is again the hope, and I underline the word hope, the city is now finally receptive to the concept of height in buildings," said Dean F. Stratouly, who developed the 33-story 33 Arch Street.

Finished in 2004, it is the last tower to open in the city, and it was famous for its inability to find tenants. The top floors are still empty.

Nevertheless, just in the past few months, dormant drawings have come alive, press releases have been cranked out about projects progressing through the serpentine environmental-permitting process, and public groups are being shown digital renderings of slim glass structures.

So why are office towers making a comeback?

After a long period of shrinkage , many companies that use office space, such as financial management firms, are looking for more space. And they're finding excess capacity is being quickly absorbed.

Companies that have 15,000 square feet of space are suddenly asking for 25,000, said Kyle B. Warwick, New England regional director of the real estate firm Spaulding & Slye, a member of the Jones Lang LaSalle group. ``That's where a lot of our growth is coming from."

Also, little new office space has been created lately. According to Spaulding & Slye , office space grew by an average of almost 1.7 million square feet annually between 2000 and 2004. But only 220,000 was added in 2005 -- while 2.1 million square feet of excess space was used up , the second highest amount ever.

Despite recent reports of people leaving the Commonwealth, office towers are filling up again. Office vacancy in the central business district fell to 11.5 percent, ``dipping below 12 percent for the first time in nearly four years," according to Grubb & Ellis Co.'s first report of 2006.

``The combination of rising rents, job creation, net absorption, and lack of big blocks of space is going to drive us toward a new office tower," said William P. Barrack, managing director of Spaulding & Slye.

Historically, Boston grew and then leveled off. The city has only one office tower of 60 floors or above, the Hancock Tower; 39 reach at least 20 stories into the sky.

Since the rebirth of downtown Boston began in the mid-1960s, towers have sprouted at the rate of one every two to two-and-a-half years. But eight years passed between Two International Place, in 1993, and 111 Huntington Ave. , in 2001.

The last office towers were completed in Boston in 2003 and 2004, but the market demand for space collapsed even before their doors opened. With no possible tower opening until at least 2009, the city will have gone a minimum of five years without new office space .

Mayor Thomas M. Menino in February challenged developers to build the almost unthinkable in modest-sized Boston: a 1,000-foot tower. It would rise on the site of a city parking garage at Winthrop Square; bids and proposals are due in the fall.

Meanwhile, the two projects that those in the industry say are closest to reality are Equity Office Properties' proposed 31-floor tower at Russia Wharf and developer Joseph F. Fallon's planned Fan Pier office ``tower" of 16 floors or so on the South Boston Waterfront (where proximity to Logan airport prohibits buildings that truly tower).

In addition, Hines Interests LP of Houston is out promoting its 40-floor Cesar Pelli skewer over South Station, and Delaware North Cos., which owns the TD Banknorth Garden, has zoning in place for two 40-story towers on the sacred ground that once held the old Boston Garden. And last month Don Chiofaro, who built giant International Place, met with City Hall officials to propose a 1.2 million-square-foot complex on the waterfront along Atlantic Avenue that would include office space and condos. The early concept is for two buildings, one a 475-foot tower.

Boston Properties has approval for more than 250,000 square feet of space in a new mid-rise tower at the Prudential Center before that 40-year-old complex is complete.

``As the market improves, clearly it is a building we'd like to build, said Edward H. Linde, chief executive of Boston Properties Inc. ``It's accelerating in the sense we're talking to potential tenants."

Tower planning is occurring despite construction costs that have zoomed up 19.7 percent in the past 27 months, according to Associated General Contractors of America, an industry group.

Most industry executives say no one will start a new project costing hundreds of millions of dollars without an anchor tenant signed up -- a big company that will take roughly half the space in a new building, possibly with the right to plaster a company name on the outside of the tower.

``Rarely will you have any project go forward completely speculatively," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

But the number of firms out there looking for a really large block of space -- the kind that would spur a developer to get going now, so the building would be ready for a 2009-2011 move-in -- is small.

They include Ropes & Gray LLP, which occupies 350,000 square feet at One International Place, and Putnam Investments, in 250,000 at One Post Office Square. But at least five other firms will soon need between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet.

``The current marketplace has very, very few blocks of large spaces available for future tenancies," said Thomas J. Hynes Jr., president of real estate firm Meredith & Grew Inc./Oncor.
 
Geez, I can't figure out whether this article is exciting or depressing!
 
I almost want to hold off on all these mid-rise office towers of 20-40 floors until the Menino tower is complete (assuming that ever goes anywhere). That will encourage larger towers, almost making it so that if the city "requires" 1.5 million square feet in office space, they might be more apt to build it in one tower and not 3-4 mid-rises.

Also a cluttering of 30-40 story buildings can be pretty good looking if they are designed right.

Hmm...interesting future. I just hope demand goes up. A lot.
 
You're right CS, it's both depressing and exciting. Looking at it from a standpoint of business in Boston, it's pretty exciting. I mean look at how corporate business is growing, when you're expanding 10,000 square feet in a year, a lot of times more--that's a good sign. If businesses were decreasing their space or packing up and moving else where in droves, then you'd have to be concerned.

From a development standpoint I think it really just reiterated what we already know. That Boston needs to think a bit higher because if they don't, the city is going to be littered with 20 story buildings. The fact that there's three or so 40-story buildings in the works is a good sign. 40 stories is a pretty good building any where. I think because it's Boston when people see a 40-story or 450-500 foot building in the works they immediately think "oh great, another stubby, boxed tower". I think the quote from the article "Nevertheless, just in the past few months, dormant drawings have come alive, press releases have been cranked out about projects progressing through the serpentine environmental-permitting process, and public groups are being shown digital renderings of slim glass structures." is key. Having some of these buildings become something other than brick boxes will have just as much impact on the skyline as a single 1,000 footer.
 
castevens said:
I almost want to hold off on all these mid-rise office towers of 20-40 floors until the Menino tower is complete (assuming that ever goes anywhere). That will encourage larger towers, almost making it so that if the city "requires" 1.5 million square feet in office space, they might be more apt to build it in one tower and not 3-4 mid-rises.

Also a cluttering of 30-40 story buildings can be pretty good looking if they are designed right.

Hmm...interesting future. I just hope demand goes up. A lot.
I think we still need these 40 story towers or Menino's skyscraper is gonna look sort of strange.
 
I say a 800ft tower like what they are doing in SF. I don't think there is space for it in DT but Gateway Center, if it ever comes into fruition, will make it look more appropiate.
 
It's interesting to look at the photo from on high that somebody posted in the Pic of the Day thread that looks south down Washington Street.

The Filene's block is actually smaller than I perceived it to be. What say--a perfect place for a slim, 600-800 footer?

Plus, there's the former Fidelity Headquarters block on the west end of Post Office Square--the zoning is still in effect for that block which would allow 600 feet, maybe more.
 
DarkFenX said:
I say a 800ft tower like what they are doing in SF. I don't think there is space for it in DT but Gateway Center, if it ever comes into fruition, will make it look more appropiate.

I agree. I think the skyline will benefit greatly from the Winthrop Square Tower, but it will benefit even more from a few 600-800 footers to surround it. The height of the skyline in Boston isn't really the problem in general, it's that most of it is the SAME height and the same type of design (bulky boxes). Adding some slim 600 footers (SST?) and maybe a glass 800 footer, on top of the WST would really transform the skyline.

Depending on the design of the 40-story towers, they could accomplish the same thing. I think it's a great sign that these businesses/corporations in Boston are thriving, and an even better sign that they're looking for new office space.
 
In San Francisco they're building a couple of 800footers and a 1000 to 1200 footer. That, to me, makes more sense. But, San Francisco is a bit more bold, architecturally, than Boston. That said, I like Boston's architecture, over all, better than I like San Francisco's.
 
^^
I have heard nothing about a 1000 to 1200 foot proposal in SF. I would hardly say SF is bolder than Boston, both have tons of regulations and NIMBYs. IMO both are great cities with somewhat stunted skylines.

I think Boston would benefit more from better nightlife and cheaper housing than any other factor like a tall buildings.
 
tocoto said:
I think Boston would benefit more from better nightlife and cheaper housing than any other factor like a tall buildings.

Well, that's an obvious point. I don't think the discussion was based on what would be more impactful to a better Boston, it was more of a discussion on reshaping and rethinking the skyline as the original article DarkFenX posted was taking it.

Cheaper housing in Boston would be a much better thing overall for the city than a few more tall buildings, without a doubt. It's just much more profitable for these developers to build high-rise office towers and residential buildings meant for those with the big bucks.

Now if you wanted to make an incentive for these developers to build more affordable towers (and I use the term 'towers' loosely, 10-20 stories) maybe you could cut deals with them on bigger projects such as tax breaks or cutting down some of the red tape of the permit process. Of course this would require the city to be proactive and also admit that there's a problem with the permit process in the first place. Anyways, this idea is for a whole other thread.
 
``There is again the hope, and I underline the word hope, the city is now finally receptive to the concept of height in buildings," said Dean F. Stratouly, who developed the 33-story 33 Arch Street.

RIGHT
 
Mythologizing SF

I meant to respond to this yesterday and got distracted....by work--damn waste of my time. :wink:

I can take pics in SF because I am working there again. So, any specific pic requests? (Will post in appropriate thread, of course.)

Two things: SF does NOT have more interesting buildings. By far, it has more ugly 70s/80s NIMBY redux than Boston. Plus the SOMA area is pretty bland and office park-like. Pics will prove it. And the Transbay Terminal is one of the ugliest, most depressing places on the planet. Boston's current North Station and the 60s version of Penn Station, the Port Authority Bus Terminals are nicer. That's how bad it is.

BTW--three days before SF announced its 'tallest', Oakland announced a potential mixed-use 63 story building. Coincidence? I think not.
 
bostonheight.jpg
 
Sorry for the phallic look-a-like. I'm not computer artistic. Or any sort of artistic for that matter.
 
Don't apologize; isn't that the whole point of skyscrapers?

justin
 
castevens said:
Sorry for the phallic look-a-like. I'm not computer artistic. Or any sort of artistic for that matter.

Don't apologize, I'm glad you took the time to build a scale that shows the height of these buildings.

What's interesting about these buildings is that two of the top 5 in terms of height are either going to be built (SST) or planned to be built (WST). It seems that little by little Boston is looking higher, at least developers are looking to build higher in Boston. They are also trying to bring a more modern feel to their skyscrapers instead of just throwing up another 500 foot box.

As much as the current skyline needs some sprucing up in terms of both a little more height and some different style buildings, if certain projects come to fruition we might have a great skyline with different styles and heights.
 

Back
Top