Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
One thing I have noticed is the notion that building taller lowers rents. Does anyone know of an example where a city experienced a major construction boom and added a lot to its skyline and street level and the rent went down? I don't think this happens, but could be wrong. I don't see a city growing and becoming more desirable ever lowering rent. Either way a building is being built here why not make it look good? They already had a good design. Its not a what if scenario, something is being built here and the current iteration as of now is lackluster.
You are probably correct that building booms are typically associated with increasing rents, not steady or decreasing ones. What you are leaving out is the confounding variable that is causing both the building boom and the increase in rents - increasing demand. Given the current supply of housing, housing costs/rents increase as demand goes up. Supply increases to meet the demand. The problem is twofold:
1) Buildings naturally take time to plan, design, go through permitting, build, etc. so there's going to be a lag between demand and supply
2) NIMBYism, zoning, etc. result in less supply than would otherwise be built
For #1, the longer it takes to go from conception to finished product, the less certain a developer can of market conditions upon completion. If I know it's going to take me 1.5 years just to go through permitting, plus another 1.5 years of building, it's going to be 3 years before my building starts getting occupants. What if the bull market turns into a bear market in 3 years?
Streamlining zoning and permitting, and limting unreasonable NIMBYism can help alleviate #1.
For #2, we make choices as a society to limit supply for the common good. Examples that many would agree on include:
- Historic preservation
- Creating open spaces
- Mandating somewhat attractive facades (basically, not building to the absolute lowest common denominator)
Sadly, some (like me) might argue that we limit supply too much. We force buildings to be shorter than they otherwise would be because of blocked views, shadows, "this street was built 100 years ago, and all of the houses or buildings are 4 stories, therefore all future buildings should be 4 stories", etc. The zoning/permitting and review process are often so cumbersome that developers end up giving up, or putting projects off in times when more supply is needed. Affordable housing requirements, such as 15% of units must be affordable, contribute to lowered supply as well, as they raise the cost of development. Mandating union labor is also a huge driver is increased building costs, and therefore less supply. Some would argue that the social good of using union labor outweighs the increased housing costs (I have thoughts on this below).
If it were up to me, I would initiate comprehensive, 21st century zoning reform, aimed at supporting more development and streamlining the permitting process. Getting variances from zoning would become very rare, basically a building either meets the codes or it doesn't. Buildings get built faster, and can be built in more places. Neighbors and citizens get a say, but less of one. Also, investing in transit and decreasing commute times from the outlying cities and towns takes demand pressure off of Boston/Cambridge/Sommerville/Brookline.
Limiting supply is one of the largest drivers of inequality in this country. It's becoming harder every year for lower income people to live in or around this city, their commute times are increasing, or they are leaving/choosing not to live in Boston to live in cheaper cities. These cheaper cities often have less social services, less opportunity to break out of poverty, less cultural assets. Yet for many people, they still make more sense to live in than Boston. It's heartbreaking. I wish that Democrats, the gatekeepers of most of our cities, would realize the strong connection between income inequality and urban housing supply. And I am saying this, lovingly, as a Democrat.
