Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm fine with the BRA not publishing their appraisals, especially since they had a 50%/$50million variance between the two. They did have a competition with public bids and picked the one with the highest cash value as well as one of (if not the) largest taxable floor plan.

Other developers i think if they were serious would have build the maximum they could to keep their project economics in line and they were still 33-50% below the winner.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Does anyone else find it odd that the Millennium Partners website is down, and they have no entry on Wikipedia?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

choo said:
I'm fine with the BRA not publishing their appraisals, especially since they had a 50%/$50million variance between the two. They did have a competition with public bids and picked the one with the highest cash value as well as one of (if not the) largest taxable floor plan.

Other developers i think if they were serious would have build the maximum they could to keep their project economics in line and they were still 33-50% below the winner.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Millennium's bid was a revenue share model based on condo sales (to reach the $150m figure), which is a hedge against market risk, and, essentially something that any creative/ambitious developer could have done. None of the others employed a revenue share model, regardless of their aggregate bid value. The opportunity for any of these developers to provide a more aggressive bid without taking on excessive risk was there for the taking.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Jesus Christ, shut up.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I second that.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Bobby Digital said:
I think we should all start making bets on when this is ACTUALLY completed, if at all. I'm saying 2014.

And the chances it does get built..... ehhh... 65/35 it does.

90/10 at a way lower height.
Click to expand...

I'm going to predict 2020
 
Last edited:
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

dotdude78 said:
I work across the street from the garage. I just walked by for the millionth time.

Let's just be glad it got approved. Ok?
Click to expand...

Which is the greater eyesore in Winthrop Sq. currently: the long-shuttered and gently crumbling garage... or the hastily-abandoned ye ole' shack of Dunkin Donuts that used to *grace* the entrance to the alleyway?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

tysmith95 said:
I'm going to predict 2020
Click to expand...
2020!? A building of this size takes AT LEAST 3 years to go from shovels to crown. 2022. Oh wait... yeah, this is Tommy's Tower. 2014 for sure.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Cortes said:
2020!? A building of this size takes AT LEAST 3 years to go from shovels to crown. 2022. Oh wait... yeah, this is Tommy's Tower. 2014 for sure.
Click to expand...

I guess i'm an optimist. If they start construction next year they could possibly top out in 2019.

Bobby digital's prediction was right on the spot in 2007, if he guessed 5 or 6 years later it would have been perfect.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The Millennium plan was to do up and down construction I forget the real term, but it was discussed on the One Dalton thread essentially they drive the piles and then start building up while they simultaneously dig the basement levels out.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Question for the board...

In which of these scenarios does a developer make a better return (I realize there are a lot of variable here, but am curious if there is a rule of thumb):

Parcel like the the Winthrop Square garage that could house either a relatively safe pedestrian tower, or an iconic tower design.

Capped height, say 725 ft. like Winthrop Square

Both developers pick the same use for the building, say a mixture of retail in the podium, office then higher floor residential, due to market conditions.

Which direction, pedestrian but very functional design, or the more iconic design makes the developer more money?

Some of my assumptions would be (feel free to correct these):

Pedestrian design generates more square footage in the same footprint (think rectangle versus an oval or whatever).

Pedestrian design square footage is more usable -- less dead space due to curves or unusual corners.

Iconic design commands more $ per square foot because of the design (or does it)?

Iconic design probably has to pay for a "starchitect"

Iconic design probably costs more per sq ft to build (more complex engineering)

Iconic design costs more per sq ft to maintain (irregular hallways and common areas are a pain to clean and maintain).

Which developer wins financially?

(Clearly thinking about this in the context of 111 Federal).

Thanks!
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^ Nearly all buildings are of "pedestrian" design because it works out better financially. "Iconic" design very rarely, if ever, justifies itself from a purely financial point of view.

Value Engineering 101.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JumboBuc said:
^ Nearly all buildings are of "pedestrian" design because it works out better financially. "Iconic" design very rarely, if ever, justifies itself from a purely financial point of view.

Value Engineering 101.
Click to expand...

Right. That is why most iconic towers are/were vanity projects built by the company that would inhabit the building. It is very challenging to justify the cost (forgone ROI) of doing an iconic design in a speculative tower.

Boston doesn't have any companies headquartered here that are likely to undertake a massive vanity tower any time soon (like Comcast in Philly). The big companies/institutions here that might pay for vanity don't generally occupy towers.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

fattony said:
Right. That is why most iconic towers are/were vanity projects built by the company that would inhabit the building.
Click to expand...

And sometimes that decision works out very poorly.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JumboBuc said:
^ Nearly all buildings are of "pedestrian" design because it works out better financially. "Iconic" design very rarely, if ever, justifies itself from a purely financial point of view.

Value Engineering 101.
Click to expand...

The formula that's working in the current market is to get an anchor tenant for up to 20 floors, build the offices and do residential the rest of the way up to the FAA height. 'You can't lose,' is also a good way to the banks to compete for the financing. That gets things moving fast at the BRA.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

OK, so as a board I guess we all should stop being surprised when we don't get Iconic designs for buildings in Boston. It is not some huge failure, it is just the marketplace in action.

And it makes perfect sense that Millennium Partners bid the highest for this property.

I guess it is too bad that the largest industrial corporation in the world, GE, didn't want to build a vanity tower as a headquarters.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JeffDowntown said:
OK, so as a board I guess we all should stop being surprised when we don't get Iconic designs for buildings in Boston. It is not some huge failure, it is just the marketplace in action.

And it makes perfect sense that Millennium Partners bid the highest for this property.

I guess it is too bad that the largest industrial corporation in the world, GE, didn't want to build a vanity tower as a headquarters.
Click to expand...

Jeff -- Oh but they are building their Digital Industrial Version of Vanity

Recipe:
  • take two existing iconic Industrial Era old factory/warehouse brick Buildings [10 floors if stacked vertically] -- renovate and add green roof stuff
  • add iconic 12 story with very vanity conscious "Solar Veil" [equivalent of about 10 stories] and nearly the icon of iconic GE Logo
  • throw in the iconic GE Plaza [the rumour [unconfirmed] from the meeting week ago Tuesday was the address for GE would be 1 GE Plaza, Boston, MA]
  • throw in some semi-iconic improvements to the harbor walk
  • Voila - Iconic HQ equivalent of about 30 story tower in terms of visibility located on a piece of land no-one can ever build in front of -- and visible from what will be the iconic additions to South Station [South Station Tower and additions in place of USPS] and from Logan

That is iconic as anything built recently by any American Company
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JeffDowntown said:
OK, so as a board I guess we all should stop being surprised when we don't get Iconic designs for buildings in Boston. It is not some huge failure, it is just the marketplace in action.

And it makes perfect sense that Millennium Partners bid the highest for this property.

I guess it is too bad that the largest industrial corporation in the world, GE, didn't want to build a vanity tower as a headquarters.
Click to expand...

The Economist had a relevant article last week regarding corporations moving into cities and why, when they move, they tend not to require the large amount of office space (or the vanity towers you mention) that they used to.

You can read the article here: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21706285-lots-prominent-american-companies-are-moving-downtown-leaving-city

It specifically mentions the GE move in Boston. The most relevant paragraph to your point is probably this:

"Yet the new downtown headquarters are very different from the old ones, and not just because they are open-plan and trendy. They are far smaller. Often, firms are moving their senior managers to the city along with a few hundred digital workers. Moving back to Chicago’s centre has usually involved downsizing: Motorola Solutions’ HQ shrank from 2,900 to 1,100, and that of Archer Daniels Midland from 4,400 to 70. Many companies are deconstructing their headquarters and scattering different units and functions across the landscape, leaving most middle managers in the old buildings, or else moving them to cheaper places in the southern states. Aaron Renn of the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank, reckons that head offices are splitting into two types: old-fashioned “mass” headquarters in the sunbelt cities, and new-style “executive headquarters” of senior managers and wired workers in elite cities such as San Francisco, Chicago and Boston."
Click to expand...
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
Jeff -- Oh but they are building their Digital Industrial Version of Vanity

Recipe:
  • take two existing iconic Industrial Era old factory/warehouse brick Buildings [10 floors if stacked vertically] -- renovate and add green roof stuff
  • add iconic 12 story with very vanity conscious "Solar Veil" [equivalent of about 10 stories] and nearly the icon of iconic GE Logo
  • throw in the iconic GE Plaza [the rumour [unconfirmed] from the meeting week ago Tuesday was the address for GE would be 1 GE Plaza, Boston, MA]
  • throw in some semi-iconic improvements to the harbor walk
  • Voila - Iconic HQ equivalent of about 30 story tower in terms of visibility located on a piece of land no-one can ever build in front of -- and visible from what will be the iconic additions to South Station [South Station Tower and additions in place of USPS] and from Logan

That is iconic as anything built recently by any American Company
Click to expand...

All true, but it doesn't get us an "iconic tower", which this board really seems to pine for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top