Congress Street Garage Development

[KentXie]

I thought President OBAMA, Ben Beranke and CNBC said the recession is OVER?

Recession is over. We're just waiting for the unemployment lag to be over before the simpletons (which is pretty much the majority of the people no offense) are convinced the recession is over. Unfortunately, their pessimism is actually extending the duration of the lag.

[Ron Newman]

Until unemployment drops there isn't a "recovery".

[TheRifleman]

Recession is over. We're just waiting for the unemployment lag to be over before the simpletons (which is pretty much the majority of the people no offense) are convinced the recession is over. Unfortunately, their pessimism is actually extending the duration of the lag.

If that was true then we wouldn't have a problem finding financing for Filenes, Congress St and Columbus. Unemployment has nothing to do with finding financing for building.

[tmac9wr]

We certainly aren't "out" of anything. However we certainly are recovering. The worst is (hopefully) over. I believe the expert consensus was that housing prices bottomed out last March. The big thing is that we're not expected to rocket back to where we were before...we're not going to see the Dow topping 15,000 anytime soon. This is going to take awhile. There is no quick fix.

From what I've heard, we'll see more and more bank money come into play as the year progresses. I guess only time we'll tell.

[buju b]

The recession is not over. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost just last month--when there is normally an uptick in season (holiday) retail sales and commerece in general.

Businesses are, at best, cautious and hesitant to expand in any significant amount with the current uncertainty surrounding existing and proposed economic policies.

Can't blame them . . . If there was the real possibility of a large increase in taxes and other cash outflows coming into the picutre, who wouldn't be tight-fisted with their $$?

The best that can be said about the economy right now is that the rate of job loss seems to have slowed somewhat, compared to several months ago anyway. There are brewing storms that could easily cause higher rates of job loss and increased unemployment levels, notably: a second round of residential mortgage foreclosures, the passage and enactment of this absurd health care reform [sic] bill, the passage and enactment of the cap and trade legislation in any form, and the passage and enactment of a check card bill, to name a few.

[TheRifleman]

We certainly aren't "out" of anything. However we certainly are recovering. The worst is (hopefully) over. I believe the expert consensus was that housing prices bottomed out last March. The big thing is that we're not expected to rocket back to where we were before...we're not going to see the Dow topping 15,000 anytime soon. This is going to take awhile. There is no quick fix.

From what I've heard, we'll see more and more bank money come into play as the year progresses. I guess only time we'll tell.


Don't you need job growth or wage growth to expand an economy All I see is Unemployement claims continue their upward trend and wages are declining. Who is going to buy these condos at Filenes for 500 or 600K?

Whatever happens when they raise rates or are they going to be record lows forever?

[BostonYoureMyHome]

If that was true then we wouldn't have a problem finding financing for Filenes, Congress St and Columbus. Unemployment has nothing to do with finding financing for building.

My understanding is that the underwriters are not going to finance an office project when offices are downsizing...not expanding. Last I checked company downsizing typically had an effect on unemployment...but I guess I could be wrong?

[KentXie]

Until unemployment drops there isn't a "recovery".

Wrong. In economic terms, recovery starts as soon as GDP starts to increase. Unemployment rate always lags behind a recession. When looking at a graph, its a good way to approximate when a recovery start, but it is not precise.

If that was true then we wouldn't have a problem finding financing for Filenes, Congress St and Columbus. Unemployment has nothing to do with finding financing for building.

Yes it does. And yes it is true, the recession is over. A recession is over once GDP increases which it did during the last quarter. However the lag in unemployment, which always occurs after a recession, is due to the lack of consumer confidence and employer confidence. No people spending means no jobs which means companies are not expanding which means no tenant for towers which means banks will not be willing to loan money to such projects. It has to do with confidence.

Don't you need job growth or wage growth to expand an economy All I see is Unemployement claims continue their upward trend and wages are declining. Who is going to buy these condos at Filenes for 500 or 600K?

Whatever happens when they raise rates or are they going to be record lows forever?
No. As shown by last quarter, even with the job loss, real GDP increased by 3.5%. Wage growth is a bad way to tell if a economy is expanding or not because we don't know whether the growth kept up with the growth in inflation. Income is a way to tell if GDP expanded or not when it is inflation-adjusted but not the growth.

[blade_bltz]

^^ I think Ron knows the Econ 101 definition of recession. He was pointing out this idea of a "jobless recovery" is a recovery in a pretty weak sense...

[KentXie]

The recession is not over. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost just last month--when there is normally an uptick in season (holiday) retail sales and commerece in general.

Businesses are, at best, cautious and hesitant to expand in any significant amount with the current uncertainty surrounding existing and proposed economic policies.

Can't blame them . . . If there was the real possibility of a large increase in taxes and other cash outflows coming into the picutre, who wouldn't be tight-fisted with their $$?

The best that can be said about the economy right now is that the rate of job loss seems to have slowed somewhat, compared to several months ago anyway. There are brewing storms that could easily cause higher rates of job loss and increased unemployment levels, notably: a second round of residential mortgage foreclosures, the passage and enactment of this absurd health care reform [sic] bill, the passage and enactment of the cap and trade legislation in any form, and the passage and enactment of a check card bill, to name a few.

Recession is over because GDP increased last quarter, period. You cannot expect jobs to immediately be created after one or so months of finding out that GDP is growing nor for it to return to pre-recession levels that quickly. Again, unemployment rate does not tell whether the economy is in a recession or not.

[armpitsOFmight]

^^^Uh, ok Mr. College know-it-all

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/littleeichmanns.gif

[kennedy]

Recession may be over, but recession is not synonymous with sustained economic hardship. Recession is a strict definition of an economic trend, but it does not describe the fiscal state of the country. That cannot be described by a simple table of numbers, it's a mix of sociology, psychology, economics, etc.

EDIT: Itchy just proved me mostly wrong.

[itchy]

Recession is over because GDP increased last quarter, period.

Sorry to be a pain, but if we're talking definitions, then that's, er, not exactly how the end of a recession is determined.

Newspapers like to say that two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction a recession make. But that's hokum.

The body charged with officially determining for the US when business cycles turn (i.e., when recessions begin/end), the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), defines recession in the following manner (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html):

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

The NBER has not called an "end" to the current recession, and that's why all reporting is very tentative in speaking of "green shoots" or "signs of an upturn" without actually saying the recession is over. It might be, or might not be. You can never really call these things in real time, unfortunately. Until the NBER decides that there has been an end to "significant decline in economic activity," recession trundles on. One quarter, or even two, of positive GDP growth doesn't necessarily mean the end (though it can). The 81-82 recession, as I remember, saw some positive GDP growth within its duration.

Sorry to go nerdly... Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[KentXie]

^^^Uh, ok Mr. College know-it-all

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/littleeichmanns.gif

Can you actually contribute something to the forum besides pictures?

[KentXie]

Sorry to be a pain, but if we're talking definitions, then that's, er, not exactly how the end of a recession is determined.

Newspapers like to say that two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction a recession make. But that's hokum.

The body charged with officially determining for the US when business cycles turn (i.e., when recessions begin/end), the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), defines recession in the following manner (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html):

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

The NBER has not called an "end" to the current recession, and that's why all reporting is very tentative in speaking of "green shoots" or "signs of an upturn" without actually saying the recession is over. It might be, or might not be. You can never really call these things in real time, unfortunately. Until the NBER decides that there has been an end to "significant decline in economic activity," recession trundles on. One quarter, or even two, of positive GDP growth doesn't necessarily mean the end (though it can). The 81-82 recession, as I remember, saw some positive GDP growth within its duration.

Sorry to go nerdly... Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
I guess that's how the US determine it. I'm using the more international definition which most economists use. My mistake.

[armpitsOFmight]

Can you actually contribute something to the forum besides pictures?

I'm just waiting to hear you start whining about me to Statler or Van about how I should be banned.

[buju b]

Kent,

Regardless of the semantics, my larger point is that the economy, by any definition, would be hard to describe as anything north of fragile.

That is why it persists to be difficult for developers (or anybody) to secure funding for just about anything.

People with money will not try and use it to make more money (by financing other people's projects) if they (1) do not think that another person's project will bring about a good return on their investment, and/or (2) have other concerns, not necessarily relating to a specific investment opportunity, about their cash in-flows and, more pointedly, cash out-flows (i.e. increased taxation).

Until this current economic climate changes, investment will not flow, companies will not grow, employment numbers will not increase, and people will continue to be more disciplined with how much money they spend which will keep overall commerce somewhat stagnant.

[BostonYoureMyHome]

^ I think Kent would agree with you on this point, and this is exactly the issue that started this conversation. So I think we can all agree that unemployment DOES have an impact on project financing, as well as the other way around. Sorry Rifleman.

[KentXie]

Kent,

Regardless of the semantics, my larger point is that the economy, by any definition, would be hard to describe as anything north of fragile.

That is why it persists to be difficult for developers (or anybody) to secure funding for just about anything.

People with money will not try and use it to make more money (by financing other people's projects) if they (1) do not think that another person's project will bring about a good return on their investment, and/or (2) have other concerns, not necessarily relating to a specific investment opportunity, about their cash in-flows and, more pointedly, cash out-flows (i.e. increased taxation).

Until this current economic climate changes, investment will not flow, companies will not grow, employment numbers will not increase, and people will continue to be more disciplined with how much money they spend which will keep overall commerce somewhat stagnant.
Exactly. I do not disagree with these statements. I'm only stating that the public will not see any improvement even if the recession is over until at least a few months has passed. However, the first thing that needs to happen is for confidence in all sectors, banks, business, consumers, etc needs to be restored before anything happens. Continuing to believe that a recession will continue for another extended period only drives confidence down, leading to people not hiring workers, and workers not spending money with no income.

[buju b]

Kent,

Agreed.

You and I are in somewhat of a chicken and egg discussion here . . .

A huge part of the reason confidence in any/all sectors is not rebounding is all of the uncertainty and potential taxation that will fall upon business and business owners. These folks/institutions cannot just click their ruby red slippers together and wish away the valid worries about the current and future climate in which they do business, no matter how much any of us wish it was that simple.

Until these concerns are dispensed with (in reality or at least in perception), the confidence will not be restored.

[Shepard]

http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/boy-scoutz-n-the-hood2.png?w=512&h=384

[tmac9wr]

^^ I think Ron knows the Econ 101 definition of recession. He was pointing out this idea of a "jobless recovery" is a recovery in a pretty weak sense...

True. But that's exactly how they're expecting the recovery to be for now: weak. We're able to lose jobs while technically "recovering" because these job losses are planned. At the beginning of the recession, jobs were getting chopped purely out of panic. However, at this point it's been 2 1/2 years since the introduction of the credit crisis (the collapse of Bear Stearns hedge funds in June of 2007 was basically the *pop* of the real estate/subprime bubble), and most job cuts are a result of planned reductions in order to cut costs, etc, etc.

From what I've heard, job growth is expected to occur later this year...hopefully around Q3. Until then, I don't see much chance major developments start unless they're being built on speculation, which doesn't happen often.

[tmac9wr]

http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/boy-scoutz-n-the-hood2.png?w=512&h=384

$20 can buy many peanuts!

[BostonYoureMyHome]

From what I've heard, job growth is expected to occur later this year...hopefully around Q3. Until then, I don't see much chance major developments start unless they're being built on speculation, which doesn't happen often.

I really hope we see some job growth in Q3. But when Q3 gets here they'll say Q2 2011.etc. etc.

As far as spec construction, it was extremely common until recently. Locally, Fan pier, Atlantic Wharf, not to mention a majority of the office space in the suburbs...to name a few.

[tmac9wr]

I really hope we see some job growth in Q3. But when Q3 gets here they'll say Q2 2011.etc. etc.

Ehhh, I'm not sure. Analysts have been pretty conservative lately. Many didn't expect we would be this far along at this point, so we'll see what happens.

As far as spec construction, it was extremely common until recently. Locally, Fan pier, Atlantic Wharf, not to mention a majority of the office space in the suburbs...to name a few.

Wow, I didn't realize that. However I doubt you're going to see much lending to a project being built in this economic environment purely on speculation.

[BostonYoureMyHome]

^Agreed

[SeamusMcFly]

$20 can buy many peanuts!
"Explain how."
"Money can be exchanged for goods and services."

Oh boy. nothing like Homer to help me end a Friday at work. Enjoy the weekend.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

As far as spec construction, it was extremely common until recently. Locally, Fan pier, Atlantic Wharf . . .

Wasn't Wellington always the anchor tenant at Atlantic Wharf?

[BostonYoureMyHome]

^^I know Wellington signed on early, but I don't believe it was before demolition had begun. Correct me if I am wrong.

[palindrome]

I believe thats correct, at least publicly it looks like the project was fully funded before signing a tenant, but there might have been earlier meetings before it was funded that were not public.

[BostonYoureMyHome]

Even if that were the case, more than half the building would still have been constructed on spec.

[TheRifleman]

After Russia Wharf is their any big projects that are in the PIPELINE?

Filene's Looks all but done.

[ShawnA]

Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 1:29pm EDT
Congress Street complex hurting for cash
Boston Business Journal - by Tim McLaughlin


The 1.2 million square-foot parking and office complex at One Congress Street is hurting for cash.

The borrower on the so-called Government Center Garage recently asked to tap a reserve fund to meet monthly shortfalls, according to documents provided by loan servicers.

The site has been the subject of ambitious plans undone by the recession and a recent change in ownership. About a year ago, Ted Raymond?s Raymond Property Co. proposed razing the garage to build a pair of office towers replete with condos, restaurants, a hotel and other retail space.

But earlier this year, Raymond stepped aside for Thomas O?Brien, a former redevelopment chief for the city. O?Brien?s HYM Investment Group LLC has been working to get tenants to fill space vacated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

One Congress Street, meanwhile, carries a mortgage of nearly $209 million that is split into two loans, $190 million and $18.5 million, respectively, according to U.S. regulatory filings. The National Electrical Benefit Fund, a multibillion dollar pension fund in Washington D.C., is the guarantor on the debt.

Fitch Ratings, in a report this month, labeled the $190 million loan on One Congress as a ?loan of concern,? citing the property?s crimped cash flow.

Fitch said two prospective tenants are considering a total of 170,000 square feet of space at rents slightly below the former EPA lease that was done through the Government Services Administration.

?The borrower has requested draws from the debt service reserve to fund monthly shortfalls,? Fitch said in its report.

The $190 million loan for One Congress Street is one of the largest inside a $7.9 billion commercial mortgage-backed securities deal that was put together in 2007 by Wachovia Bank and Wall Street firms. The lender on the loan is Artesia Mortgage Capital Corp.

But as a buffer, at least three separate reserves were set up at the time the loan was originated.

Those reserves included $4.5 million for meeting debt service payments; $4.5 million for hitting lease targets; and $2.4 million for capital expenditures, according to filings connected to the CMBS deal.

In February, the $190 million loan was evaluated by Boston-based DebtX, which estimated it was worth about 80 cents on the dollar.

One Congress Street needs to generate enough cash to make interest payments on the loan, which doesn?t mature until 2014. Monthly payments on the loan, which comes with an annual interest rate of 6.07 percent, range from about $900,000 to about $994,000, according to Bloomberg data.

Given the increase in vacancy rates and falling property values in Boston, Fitch has determined the property is heavily leveraged. The rating agency pegs the loan-to-value ratio at nearly 130 percent.



http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2010/04/05/daily23.html

[Cojapo]

Is there any good news with regards to development in Boston? None of the press releases have any optimism or hope that something could get going soon.
Lame.

[tobyjug]

Did you ever wonder why there isn't much Art Deco in Boston? Someday, someone might comment on our times by saying that there isn't much Tokyo sky tree (or whatever) around here.

[KentXie]

From our last boom we constructed 2 towers above 500ft, 3 towers from 400-499ft, possibly 4 towers from 300-399ft, and I believe 4 towers in the range of 250-299ft. Pretty pitiful to me.

[itchy]

And none of those buildings would today be allowed on the city's best development sites: the Aquarium garage, the South Boston Waterfront, and over the Pike.

[vanshnookenraggen]

You Debbie Downers piss me off so much.

[KentXie]

You Debbie Downers piss me off so much.

Give me one reason why I shouldn't be because you're probably seeing something I am not.

[vanshnookenraggen]

The entire nation is in this recession and you are complaining that we only built 13 towers in the last decade. Give me a fucking break dude! You know how well off Boston is, how lucky it is, how much of a power house it still is? Boston is BLESSED it has as few stalled projects as it does. I can show you a single street in New York that has more stalled projects on it than Boston does. The amount of Boston self loathing on this board really pisses me off.

[itchy]

A fair point, Van; but recession is one thing, while it's another when you have a mayor/power establishment that seem to shoot down any decent development and simultaneously cobble together their own favored developments -- which turn out to be the type of disasters the BRA has been raining upon Boston for decades.

I think that the BRA and the city's political elite have been doing harm to the city for years from the point of view of quality of life, urban planning, preservation and architecture and aesthetics. Does it mean we're in the same position as a Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo? No. But given that there's simply no need or demand for that at all, it's a shame and a waste, and until Boston gets less harmful leadership, it's tough to see such poor decisionmaking made "on behalf of the people" and not be frustrated.

[KentXie]

The entire nation is in this recession and you are complaining that we only built 13 towers in the last decade. Give me a fucking break dude! You know how well off Boston is, how lucky it is, how much of a power house it still is? Boston is BLESSED it has as few stalled projects as it does. I can show you a single street in New York that has more stalled projects on it than Boston does. The amount of Boston self loathing on this board really pisses me off.

The 13 towers were planned and done during the boom period. Get your facts straight. That's all Boston could show for it.

And to be honest, only the Millennium Towers, 33 Arch St., 111 Huntington, and 1 Lincoln should even be considered as true towers. The rest are high-rises and we didn't even get one skyscraper. That's bullshit and you know it. The 70s were more progressive even with population losses.

[TheRifleman]

"Given the increase in vacancy rates and falling property values in Boston, Fitch has determined the property is heavily leveraged. The rating agency pegs the loan-to-value ratio at nearly 130 percent."

So what happens to the project now? In the end

Does Raymond build this?
Does Raymond Sell this ?
Or does Raymond Default?

[palindrome]

I think that the BRA and the city's political elite have been doing harm to the city for years from the point of view of quality of life, urban planning, preservation and architecture and aesthetics. Does it mean we're in the same position as a Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo? No. But given that there's simply no need or demand for that at all, it's a shame and a waste, and until Boston gets less harmful leadership, it's tough to see such poor decisionmaking made "on behalf of the people" and not be frustrated.

"Ron and his architect also showed how they had basically made the building more boring to satisfy Boston Redevelopment Authority planners who did not want it becoming an "iconic" structure that would take attention away from the Greenway or other nearby buildings - including museums and similar structures that might one day be built along the Greenway"



source (http://www.universalhub.com/node/27351)

[Cojapo]

You Debbie Downers piss me off so much.

Why's that Van? Cause it's accurate? Look at the state of development over the last 20 months and all the projects that have been canceled. I know it's mostly due to economics, but it still sucks. There have been some great projects that may never come to fruition and we all have a right to be down about that.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Does Raymond build this?
Does Raymond Sell this ?
Or does Raymond Default?

Raymond isn't involved anymore. But it's a good question regarding default by the owner. Why put more capital into a property that's way underwater and has fuzzy development prospects?

[TheRifleman]

Raymond isn't involved anymore. But it's a good question regarding default by the owner. Why put more capital into a property that's way underwater and has fuzzy development prospects?

Didn't the BRA just approve 600Ft for this site? Boston Development is going down the tubes real fast. Is their any projects in the pipeline that actually use private money. I know Menino and the BRA have some projects with stimilus money for affordable housing projects.


33 Arch Sucks (not a big fan of that development)

[itchy]

"Ron and his architect also showed how they had basically made the building more boring to satisfy Boston Redevelopment Authority planners who did not want it becoming an "iconic" structure that would take attention away from the Greenway or other nearby buildings


source (http://www.universalhub.com/node/27351)

Good article (though I can't say I think Ron's project will be better for the city than renovating and re-using the Dainty Dot building with a few new stories on top); I also enjoyed this cheeky line from the reporter:

"Member Kirk Sykes said he likes the project, because the Greenway will remain a barren expanse of grass without people living nearby to actually use it after the tourists leave."

[Patriots_1228]

"made the building more boring to satisfy Boston Redevelopment Authority planners "

That just about sums up why Menino and his buddies suck.

[stellarfun]

No tower is going to be built in Boston (or pretty much anywhere else in the U.S.) in the foreseeable future just on spec. If you don't have a major tenant(s) already signed on the dotted line, then you aren't going to get construction financing. And with respect to Boston, nobody has yet identified who these major tenants might be. Does anybody see a big bank moving its HQ to Boston? Is Fidelity looking for a signature building (last I read, Fidelity was moving jobs out of Boston). So all the fulminating over Menino and the BRA does not change the simple fact that nobody is lining up to work or live in these towers that are proposed but stalled.

EPA moves into the renovated digs at Post Offi9ce Sq., and the Congress St garage building goes under water. Can't find anyone to take space offered at less than the government was paying.

Chiofaro acknowledges that even if he has the approvals he seeks, he can't build without a tenant. So the idea that approving his project is going to solve Boston's current tax shortfall is ludicrous. And in his ENF, IIRC, Chiofaro indicates the project would be built in stages over a ten year period or so, so not much in the way of taxes until after 2020.

[Lurker]

Chiofaro acknowledges that even if he has the approvals he seeks, he can't build without a tenant.

Win-win

Sell off and knock down the Hurley building next door to Suffolk for a new campus (they can move out of and sell the expensive property on Beacon Hill) along the pre-urban-renewal street grid. Move the government offices into the new tower.

[palindrome]

No tower is going to be built in Boston (or pretty much anywhere else in the U.S.) in the foreseeable future just on spec. If you don't have a major tenant(s) already signed on the dotted line, then you aren't going to get construction financing. And with respect to Boston, nobody has yet identified who these major tenants might be. Does anybody see a big bank moving its HQ to Boston? Is Fidelity looking for a signature building (last I read, Fidelity was moving jobs out of Boston). So all the fulminating over Menino and the BRA does not change the simple fact that nobody is lining up to work or live in these towers that are proposed but stalled.

EPA moves into the renovated digs at Post Offi9ce Sq., and the Congress St garage building goes under water. Can't find anyone to take space offered at less than the government was paying.

Chiofaro acknowledges that even if he has the approvals he seeks, he can't build without a tenant. So the idea that approving his project is going to solve Boston's current tax shortfall is ludicrous. And in his ENF, IIRC, Chiofaro indicates the project would be built in stages over a ten year period or so, so not much in the way of taxes until after 2020.

not for nothing and because speculation is fun, but Soveirgn Bank could officially relocate there HQ here. There CEO and most senior management are already stationed here.

Also BOA's new CEO hails from Wellesley, but a BOA headquarters move from Charlotte is almost next to unimaginable.

[KentXie]

No tower is going to be built in Boston (or pretty much anywhere else in the U.S.) in the foreseeable future just on spec. If you don't have a major tenant(s) already signed on the dotted line, then you aren't going to get construction financing. And with respect to Boston, nobody has yet identified who these major tenants might be. Does anybody see a big bank moving its HQ to Boston? Is Fidelity looking for a signature building (last I read, Fidelity was moving jobs out of Boston). So all the fulminating over Menino and the BRA does not change the simple fact that nobody is lining up to work or live in these towers that are proposed but stalled.

EPA moves into the renovated digs at Post Offi9ce Sq., and the Congress St garage building goes under water. Can't find anyone to take space offered at less than the government was paying.

Chiofaro acknowledges that even if he has the approvals he seeks, he can't build without a tenant. So the idea that approving his project is going to solve Boston's current tax shortfall is ludicrous. And in his ENF, IIRC, Chiofaro indicates the project would be built in stages over a ten year period or so, so not much in the way of taxes until after 2020.

True but if you can get approval to build it now then when tenants do line up at better economic times, the project would not have to undergo a lengthy approval process that might end up delaying it to a less than desirable economic period.

Project should get an approval, but not allowed to be built until a tenant is found.

[itchy]

Win-win

Sell off and knock down the Hurley building next door to Suffolk for a new campus (they can move out of and sell the expensive property on Beacon Hill) along the pre-urban-renewal street grid. Move the government offices into the new tower.

That's a very good idea.

[stellarfun]

Win-win

Sell off and knock down the Hurley building next door to Suffolk for a new campus (they can move out of and sell the expensive property on Beacon Hill) along the pre-urban-renewal street grid. Move the government offices into the new tower.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not going to pay the rents that Chiofaro will want to charge. He has a reputation, which he prides himself on, of owning some of the priciest commercial office space in Boston.
_________________________________________
The best that Boston might hope for from BOA is to move more of its wealth management operations to Boston.

At one time, I thought RBS might have its U.S. HQ in Boston, one of its main U.S. subsidiaries is Citizens Bank, in Providence. But RBS is now hanging on for dear financial life to a British government life preserver.
_________________________________________

And Chiofaro is desperate to get a building permitted and approved, because that is probably the only way that he gets the valuation of his garage property to approach what he paid for it. Without permits and approvals, he almost surely is in the same figurative boat as the Congress St. Garage, with water flowing over the gunwales and his projecrt soon to be financially submerged, and ultimately sunk.

[TheRifleman]

No tower is going to be built in Boston (or pretty much anywhere else in the U.S.) in the foreseeable future just on spec. If you don't have a major tenant(s) already signed on the dotted line, then you aren't going to get construction financing. And with respect to Boston, nobody has yet identified who these major tenants might be. Does anybody see a big bank moving its HQ to Boston? Is Fidelity looking for a signature building (last I read, Fidelity was moving jobs out of Boston). So all the fulminating over Menino and the BRA does not change the simple fact that nobody is lining up to work or live in these towers that are proposed but stalled.

EPA moves into the renovated digs at Post Offi9ce Sq., and the Congress St garage building goes under water. Can't find anyone to take space offered at less than the government was paying.

Chiofaro acknowledges that even if he has the approvals he seeks, he can't build without a tenant. So the idea that approving his project is going to solve Boston's current tax shortfall is ludicrous. And in his ENF, IIRC, Chiofaro indicates the project would be built in stages over a ten year period or so, so not much in the way of taxes until after 2020.

How do you attract business's from overseas or other parts of the country when the city won't move forward? If your city is not seen as being business friendly why in the world would you move a business to this area.
I know Congress St has a cash flow problems. I also been reading about....... "Fitch report raises concerns over 225 Franklin's turnover, cash flow" IN the Boston Business Journal.

Curious what other major buildings in the city are overleveraged?
Somebody just bought Hancock for 20 Million at an auction and took over 600Million plus Note. A far cry from the $1000 dollar a ft paid by Broadway Partners.

[kennedy]

Start from the bottom.

Attract new businesses by proving that there is a very eligible and skilled workforce. Convince the college graduates to stay in the city, to either look for work or start their own companies. I'd say that a 60% retention rate over five years is a good goal (no idea what it is now).

Once you've got the basics, small startups will take up commercial space, and attract larger buyers. They'll also start to merge. Business attracts more business. We've got a few startups, but it's almost entirely limited to biotech, and a small bit of computer science. Take advantage of this, grow it.

Finally, change city policy to encourage business and development. Encourage affordable residential development, and continue investment in public services, like the T. Part of the goal is to draw businesses and employees in from the suburbs (imagine a Raytheon Tower, or a Bose Building, or a TJX Tower). That will be progress. This is (unfortunately) the most difficult task on the list, and likely won't happen while Menino's regime is in power.

[ablarc]

... a BOA headquarters move from Charlotte is almost next to unimaginable.
If they move, it'll be to New York.

[bdurden]

If they move, it'll be to New York.

Why?

[palindrome]

Because they own a nice new tower there. ^`

[Beton Brut]

Designed by Cook + Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Bryant_Park), the same firm who won the commission for this ill-fated project.

[kennedy]

They won the commission here, but didn't the design get radically value-engineered to the point that it resembled the SOM plan more than the Cook + Fox plan?

[tmac9wr]

I never heard anything about that...were there ever any images released?

[palindrome]

They won the commission here, but didn't the design get radically value-engineered to the point that it resembled the SOM plan more than the Cook + Fox plan?

That was the massing model you are thinking of, that even after cook and fox was chose, continued to accompany newpaper articles.

Massing model:
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/8dbceff34e_garage_06032009.jpg


Actual Design:

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/03/02/1236048709_7982/539w.jpg

[kennedy]

My bad, that's exactly what I was thinking of. I am absolutely in love with the Cook + Fox design. God, take it away, I don't want to be reminded of what we could be building!

[HenryAlan]

And just imagine, filling in the far left edge of that picture, Chioforo's towers. That would make such sexy book ends.

[TheRifleman]

Love the actual design. Chiofaro Towers, SST would be the final completion on the Greenway. Too bad the BRA has no vision at all. Face it the GREENWAY $ucks.

At least they are building casino's in East Boston that should do wonders to that area.

[Shepard]

Wow, this thread hasn't been bumped in a while. Statler's article that he posted in the Greenway thread reminded me of this, since the BRA Greenway guidelines are set to allow 600' here.

Does anyone know whether the office floors of the garage have been re-leased since Raymond left? And if not, could an official designation for height here within the Greenway planning area revitalize this development?

[Suffolk 83]

I googled this looking for how much it was to park and this was 3rd down the list. That didn't help much

[Shepard]

Google "government center garage" instead.

So, anyone know?

[JohnAKeith]

Heights proposed for it are 400-600 feet, according to today's Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2010/08/17/boston_calling_for_greenway_specific_zoning_rules/

[SeamusMcFly]

We recently did some work for the top 2 floors of office space at the garage where I understand the tenant just extended their lease. By how long, I don't know. Basically just did some LEED type upgrades.

[Shepard]

Thanks - Would be interesting to know how long that lease was extended.

[BostonUrbEx]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4712092147_619f85d398_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4712732718_d4a7b6b234_b.jpg

June 9th, from the Custom House Tower.

[czsz]

All I can think is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtsSmcQHZuE

[blade_bltz]

All I can think is....world class?

[Charlie_mta]

All I can think is....Soviet.

[Bubbybu]

MY EYES ARE BUGGING FROM SO MUCH BAUHAUS AND BRUTALISM!!

That vantage definitely has an eastern european look to it but it's honestly still a nice array imo....there is so much horizontal emphasis that it's almost hypnotic...

the only thing I don't like is...DEAR GOD LOOK AT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE GARAGE....ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

[czsz]

Nah, it's not very Eastern European. More akin to the ugly council house estates and other ugly nonsense built in bombed out spots of British cities after the blitz.

People, Soviet bloc communist housing didn't get nearly such nice concrete. It looks like it was built out of corrugated metal half the time. I was shocked by Warsaw...I thought it would look like Government Center, but it looks, well, way less structurally sound.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

People, Soviet bloc communist housing didn't get nearly such nice concrete. It looks like it was built out of corrugated metal half the time. I was shocked by Warsaw...I thought it would look like Government Center, but it looks, well, way less structurally sound.

I agree. I felt the same about rebuilt areas of Budapest. Moscow, however, definitely has some serious concrete.

[PaulC]

Plan to redevelop the Government Center Garage is revived
E-mail| Print | Comments (0) June 22, 2011 11:01 AM
By Globe Staff

A developer is proposing to redevelop the 11-story Government Center Garage into a massive office, hotel, retail, and residential complex that would be the largest project in Downtown Boston to proceed in decades.

HYM Investment Group said it wants to move forward with a phased redevelopment plan for about 2.4 million square feet of space on a roughly 4-acre site near Congress Street and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. According to HYM, its proposal would “remove the unsightly barrier of the Government Center Garage” and “enliven the connections among the neighborhoods of the West End, the North End, Beacon Hill, and Government Center.”

HYM submitted its proposal to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, or the BRA, the city’s planning agency.

The project will require zoning relief under the Boston Zoning Code, HYM said.

HYM is headed by Thomas O’Brien, a former BRA director.

O’Brien took over as developer of the Government Center Garage project after the project’s previous manager, Ted Raymond, failed to move forward with a plan for two skyscrapers on the site.

In its filing with the city, HYM did not disclose a start date for construction, but said it will remove the garage in stages to ensure that parking remains available.






http://www.boston.com/Boston/businessupdates/2011/06/plan-redevelop-the-government-center-garage-revived/i2OUmt6adOXdYSzK23xyYJ/index.html

[KentXie]

Now we wait for a Ned Flaherty-type poster (aka Greenwayguy) to dictate what can and can't be built "in his backyard."

[TheRifleman]

I actually thought O'Brien worked for the city?

Didn't the Greenway Study already ok for a 600ft tower in this location?

[BostonUrbEx]

Huzzah! But why bother mentioning a start date for construction was not stated? This still has to go through a number of hurdles, no? This is a completely new project drawn up from the sounds of it.

I can't wait to hear more about this. This spot seems ideal for Boston's tallest buildings to be located in. Hopefully something nice will emerge.


"but said it will remove the garage in stages to ensure that parking remains available."

Why? I sure hope this project results in a net decrease in parking.

[DZH22]

I am as excited about this project as anyone (though the excitement is tempered a bit because any towers on this site are still YEARS away... par for the course with this hobby though). However, I guess I am a little bit curious about the parking. Who are the primary users of this garage now? Is it usually full? Between this and the North Station garage possibly coming down, where are all of the displaced cars going to go? (don't give me some utopian bs answer either) Where are people supposed to park for Celtics/Bruins games? (again, don't just give the blanket statement that 20k people should just ride the T, I am actually curious for real answers here)

In no way am I advocating the preservation of these parking garages by asking these questions.

[BostonUrbEx]

The North Station garage was just leased out for 70 years or something by the MBTA. What do you mean it is coming down?

And I'm sure everyone who uses it now could find something somewhere. And the few remaining who are displaced can switch to the T. We need more park & rides, there should be garages out on 128.

[PaulC]

He means this garage:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=3566&page=6&highlight=Garage

[KentXie]

Huzzah! But why bother mentioning a start date for construction was not stated? This still has to go through a number of hurdles, no? This is a completely new project drawn up from the sounds of it.

I can't wait to hear more about this. This spot seems ideal for Boston's tallest buildings to be located in. Hopefully something nice will emerge.


"but said it will remove the garage in stages to ensure that parking remains available."

Why? I sure hope this project results in a net decrease in parking.

Because this garage is used often for Garden events. I hope there isn't any net decrease in parking.

[Ron Newman]

I think he meant the Basketball City garage coming down, not the one under North Station. If parking is removed in this area, more people will take public transportation instead. The Bruins and Celtics will still sell out.

[TheRifleman]

A Blogger from Boston Globe.........Interesting......

FredQuimby wrote:
"HYM is headed by Thomas O’Brien, a former BRA director."

Why is nobody talking about this? The revolving door between government and big business continues.

How better to get a project passed than to hire the guy that created the rules and knows how to bend them. With friends on the inside to boot.
6/22/2011 11:56 AM EDT

[DZH22]

A Blogger from Boston Globe.........Interesting......

FredQuimby wrote:
"HYM is headed by Thomas O’Brien, a former BRA director."

Why is nobody talking about this? The revolving door between government and big business continues.

How better to get a project passed than to hire the guy that created the rules and knows how to bend them. With friends on the inside to boot.
6/22/2011 11:56 AM EDT

I was staring at International Place the other day and kept thinking how great it would be if Boston ever managed to undertake another project of that magnitude. At this point, I don't even care how it gets done. I just want something to happen. It's been too long.

[TheRifleman]

I was staring at International Place the other day and kept thinking how great it would be if Boston ever managed to undertake another project of that magnitude. At this point, I don't even care how it gets done. I just want something to happen. It's been too long.

IP makes Boston's Skyline.......Like them or not but they are becoming Boston's Building symbol.... they seem to stand out more than Hancock & Pru these days.

[Mayor Menino's Crohn's]

Wouldn't the parking just be relocated and replaced beneath the garage(s)? And no, we cannot have 20k people riding the T. We just saw what happened with the Bruins parade.

[PaulC]

A Blogger from Boston Globe.........Interesting......

FredQuimby wrote:
"HYM is headed by Thomas O’Brien, a former BRA director."

Why is nobody talking about this? The revolving door between government and big business continues.

How better to get a project passed than to hire the guy that created the rules and knows how to bend them. With friends on the inside to boot.
6/22/2011 11:56 AM EDT

I thought he left on bad terms?

[TheRifleman]

I thought he left on bad terms?

I don't know........but the terms can't be that bad if he is proposing to build 2.1 Million Square foot building.

[JohnAKeith]

Mr Mayor's Crohn, yes, the MBTA cannot handle double the amount of daily riders with three days' notice.

http://robertdavidsullivan.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/06/sorry-bruins-fans-but-the-mbta-really-cant-plan-for-once-in-a-lifetime-crowds.html

[palindrome]

wow. Feels like 2006 around here again. :D

[Beton Brut]

Wouldn't the parking just be relocated and replaced beneath the garage(s)?

Not exactly. From a long time ago:

Interestingly, you can only go down about 30' before you hit bedrock, so an underground garage even half of this scale would be impossible.

But consider:

If we need to replicate this capacity, assume 40% in the new developments. For the rest, look no further than North Station, over the tracks. It'll work for Garden game parking, and could be engineered to allow for future air-rights development.

[Mike]

New garage plan unveiled as waterfront towers break ground
Suddenly, Boston’s booming
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, June 23, 2011


Projects at Fan Pier and the Government Center Garage signal the floodgates may be opening for major developments that will dramatically change the city’s landscape, transforming empty lots and eyesores into office towers and luxury apartments.

“These projects are a sign that the city’s economy is strong and it sends a positive message to investors who are considering coming to Boston,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Herald. “We have a city that continues to grow, and people see the potential for development.”

On the same day that the Fallon Co. broke ground at Fan Pier on two office towers totaling 1.1 million square feet, the Government Center Garage redevelopment project was revived after a two-year delay. Hym Investment Group LLC told the Boston Redevelopment Authority that it will seek approval for a 2.4-million-square-foot mixed-use project at the garage near the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.

Hym chief executive Thomas O’Brien said the scaled-down garage development would replace the concrete eyesore with office, residential, hotel and retail space.

The original plan called for two skyscrapers, 42 and 52 stories tall, and demolition of the District A-1 Police Headquarters and another city-owned property on New Sudbury Street to make way for a 3.4-million-square-foot complex. But the project faced opposition from the North End and West End neighborhoods and Menino — who said that the project was too tall and dense, with one proposed tower twice the height of the nearby John F. Kennedy Federal Building

O’Brien declined to provide many details about the revamped development, but he said the project will be 1 million square feet smaller and will not require demolition of any city property. Menino said the revised plan would still include twin towers, but they would be much shorter. He was optimistic that the details could be worked out to win neighborhood approval. “I hope they will move forward very quickly,” he said. “I’m looking forward to working with them. This is not the project it was previously.”

In addition to the Fan Pier towers, several other long-stalled projects are expected to break ground this summer, including Hayward Place, a $200 million residential project in Downtown Crossing. The 15-story building will have 265 housing units and replace a parking lot on lower Washington Street.

In addition, the 27-story Kensington building at the corner of Washington and LaGrange streets, is set to break ground this summer and will include 385 apartments with 4,000 square feet of retail and office space.

David Begelfer, CEO of the commercial real estate trade group NAIOP Massachusetts, said while the economy is showing signs of improvement, he remains cautious. “Things are getting better,” he said. “(But) we are still at the early stages of the recovery.”


Link (http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1347408&position=0)

[GW2500]

Much shorter towers, fucking LAME. Even after a bullshit greenway report which was very stifling of height in the first place said this area could handel it. Might as well accept the coply sq condo won't be 47 stories either. Which really ain't any thing crazy either ( ya know 47 stories in 2011). Boston can be big time in some ways , but in others so god damn small minded Yankee quaint. And we have the audacity to think we can compare ourselves to NYC. Down there they build towers, not up here.

[JSic]

Might as well accept the fact that we will never see a tower above 600' or so again. I'd be surprised if these even break 550'.

[KentXie]

All I can say is, FUCK YOU BOSTON. This literally takes the cake. Can't wait for my trip to Philly so I can get out of this backward city for a bit and hopefully I'll be able to co-op away from this small minded shit-hole. Vancouver isn't the whiniest city, it's Boston.

Here's hoping the garage gets demolished and the money runs out before construction. Yes I would cut the nose to spite the face. Boston doesn't deserve anything grand if this is the way people think.

[Beton Brut]

Imagine if there were a refrigerator that, when you put your food inside, it instantly went bad.

That's Boston.

[SeamusMcFly]

New garage plan unveiled as waterfront towers break ground
[size=3]
But the project faced opposition from the North End and West End neighborhoods and Menino — who said that the project was too tall and dense, with one proposed tower twice the height of the nearby John F. Kennedy Federal Building

In addition to the Fan Pier towers,

Link (http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1347408&position=0)

Pardon my American, but who the fuck are you to say it's too tall? And, the only thing too dense, is that big fat fucking head of yours....

I digress.

Also, Fan Pier is not building towers. 250' high by 250' wide is a box and not a tower. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.

[carwash]

We can't allow a small minded minority to dictate what gets built in this city. This kind of mindset is killing Boston and if it continues the city won't be able to compete globally.

[type001]

As enraged as I am, I bet nothing comes out of whatever this proposal might be. That garage is going nowhere in our lifetimes, and honestly that is probably the best option. The fact that the review process is going to take so long as well as construction/material prices going up, the developer will have to revise plans to make a profit and, well, we know the rest.

And if this new proposal does not include "Prudential sized buildings", are they just going to build a bunch of landscrapers a la the current thing that's there now? You have to build tall here for the developer to make a profit and to create wider openings that bridge the """neighborhoods""" back together.

I'm sick of making excuses for you Boston.

[type001]

You do have to like/wonder about the fact that O'Brien will not comment on the height. Rather, he is making it clear that no city-owned property will be taken. Hmmmmmm.....


Ambitious plan for Government Center Garage site
Vast project calls for shops, housing

By Casey Ross (http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=Casey+Ross&camp=localsearch:on:byline:art)

Globe Staff / June 23, 2011
The hulking Government Center Garage in Boston would be torn down and replaced with a massive complex of residences, offices, and stores under an ambitious plan made public yesterday.


The project — which, if approved, would be one of the largest to proceed in downtown in decades — comes from HYM Investment Group LLC, and would bring 2.4 million square feet of development to a key 4-acre plot between Boston City Hall, the TD Garden, and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. For 40 years the garage has acted as a wall between the area around Faneuil Hall and a reemerging neighborhood in the city’s West End.

“The proposed project will remove the unsightly barrier of the Government Center Garage from its current prominent position over Congress Street ,’’ HYM chief Thomas N. O’Brien, a former Boston planning chief, wrote in a two-page letter to the Boston Redevelopment Authority. The letter, released by the BRA yesterday, also said the de velopment would include a hotel, a “major residential component,’’ and retail stores that would complement a planned food market above the Haymarket MBTA station.

O’Brien has not said how tall the proposed complex would be. The current garage, which is topped by several floors of offices, is 11 stories.

Even at its smaller size, the development would be the largest in the current pipeline of construction projects in downtown Boston and would bring hundreds of new residents into an area of the city that goes quiet on nights when the Boston Bruins or Celtics are not playing at the nearby Garden. The project is more than double what another developer has proposed building on the site of the former Filene’s department store in Downtown Crossing.

The garage is located on New Sudbury Street and is bounded by Congress, New Chardon, and Hawkins streets.

The new proposal must get multiple city and state approvals before construction could begin, a process likely to take a year or longer. O’Brien, who also must secure tenants for the project, said in a statement yesterday that he intends to submit more details to the city in the fall.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a skeptic of the prior plan for the site, offered general support for the latest version yesterday, saying it would not overshadow the adjacent Greenway parks.

“I think you’ll see a different type of development there,’’ he said. “It won’t take any of the city’s property, and it will be scaled down from what you’ve seen in the past.’’

Menino spoke after a celebration at a different development project — Fan Pier, the 23-acre project on the South Boston Waterfront — for the groundbreaking of the new home for drug maker Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (http://finance.boston.com/boston?Page=QUOTE&Ticker=VRTX), which will lease an $800 million office and research complex on the site. That project involves the largest lease in the city’s history, and is the largest ongoing private development in the country.

He said the progress at Fan Pier and Government Center “shows the economy is getting stronger’’ and that private funding is beginning to reemerge for expensive construction projects.

The Government Center Garage proposal replaces a prior $2.2 billion plan by developer Ted Raymond to build a pair of Prudential-Building-sized skyscrapers that would have required using adjacent city-owned property. In early 2010, Raymond was removed by the garage’s owners, Lewis Trust Group of Great Britain and the National Electrical Workers Benefit fund, after he failed to move forward with the project. O’Brien was tapped to replace him.

The Government Center Garage redevelopment is one of the few remaining opportunities for large-scale development near the Greenway. In his filing with the city, O’Brien steered clear of the project’s most controversial aspects, including the height of the buildings he would construct. Raymond’s towers would have topped out at 42 and 52 stories, a size that raised concerns from its neighbors and the city.

O’Brien said only that the project would be multiple stories and would be built in phases. The development would be built over a new parking facility that would replace the spaces lost from demolition of the existing garage. The work to dismantle the garage would occur in phases, keeping open some sections to preserve parking during construction.

O’Brien confirmed his plans do not include using any of the city-owned parcels in the area, including the one that hosts a recently renovated Boston Police station. Although the project’s details are still being developed, it would include multiple buildings and create new walking paths between Government Center and surrounding neighborhoods.

HYM’s filing also said the work would create several thousand construction jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the city.

One neighborhood leader said he was pleased to see the new initiative. “It suggests the potential for this site has returned,’’ said Robert O’Brien, executive director of the Downtown North Association, which represents businesses and residents in the area. “There are a lot of problems that need to be worked out, but I think the community has confidence that it can happen this time.’’

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com (cross@globe.com).

Link:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/06/23/government_center_garage_plan_adds_shops_housing/

[JSic]

I'm sick of making excuses for you Boston.
Well, we haven't pulled the "oh well, skyscrapers aren't that important, they dont make a city great" card yet. There's always that.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/Sasha_w/smiley_emoticons_selbstmord.gif?t=1242073140

[Shepard]

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a skeptic of the prior plan for the site, offered general support for the latest version yesterday, saying it would not overshadow the adjacent Greenway parks.

Is this literally about shadows, or, similar to the Dainty Dot fiasco, does the Greenway have to be the most EXCITING thing within a five mile radius (Innovation District aside, of course)?

Feeble-minded in either case.

[BostonUrbEx]

Before I throw in my hat, rant about how new development in Boston sucks, and go into a depression....

...let's look at similar sized cities and their new developments. Does San Fran have anything this size going on right now? Do they have anything larger going up right now? When was the last time they had something of this scale going on?

This is not rhetorical, I'm looking for answers. Anything SF can do, Boston can do better. But I don't know that they're doing a single thing.

[type001]

@JSic: Very true. I love the emoticon BTW!

@Shepard: Yes, I think that is it, and yes, feeble-minded for sure. But let's not forget that the study that was conducted last year proved that there would be no significant shadow effects no matter what the height was. It's possible that there might be a proposal for significant height here, and Mumbles might know it. O'Briena and Menino are getting people on board by mentioning all of the other positives. I think that mentioning the scale-down might simply refer to the fact the city-owned parcel is not being taken.

[Ron Newman]

I'm happy to see that this doesn't involve taking city property, as that removes a major obstacle to development.

[DZH22]

Before I throw in my hat, rant about how new development in Boston sucks, and go into a depression....

...let's look at similar sized cities and their new developments. Does San Fran have anything this size going on right now? Do they have anything larger going up right now? When was the last time they had something of this scale going on?

This is not rhetorical, I'm looking for answers. Anything SF can do, Boston can do better. But I don't know that they're doing a single thing.

SF actually built a couple of towers around 640-650' in the past 2-3 years. Also, Transbay or whatever isn't technically dead or anything either, although it's been dead to me ever since they picked that shitty Pelli design over SOM.

Oklahoma City is building an 850' tower (previous tallest, 500'). I know that one sure pisses me off! By the way this tower is approx 700' as we speak, so not like it's not happening.

European cities that have either built their new tallest (not tall, tallest) buildings in the last few years, or have them in the short term pipeline include... London, Moscow, Madrid, Warsaw, Rotterdam, The Hague, Paris, Baku, Seville, Vienna, Liverpool, Milan... When European skylines are catching/passing Boston's skyline, you know we are stagnant.

Cincinnati and Austin both just built towers taller than 600'. Calgary just put up The Bow (774) and EAP (~699) right after putting up some 500'+ office towers. Trust me when I say Calgary is booming, and booming right by Boston (not at street level obviously).

Melbourne is about to enter a new building boom, and one of its towers (Prima Pearl) has just gone from 225m (738') all the way up to 251m (823')!!! Gold Coast is building Soul which is just taller than the Hancock. Brisbane is building Soleil (just taller than Hancock) followed by Infinity (just taller than Soleil) followed by 111+222 (~970'). Perth is building BHP (just taller than Hancock to top of "cage").

When I went to Toronto in 2002 it had something like 10 500' buildings to Boston's 16. Now it has something like 30+ 500' buildings to Boston's 16. Again, if you are interested in booming cities, check out Toronto's development sections on SSC and SSP.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "Fuck you Menino", as Boston continues to be stuck in the 20th century... How does this guy keep getting reelected? At least our sports teams are good!

[BostonUrbEx]

At least our sports teams are good!

That's the only thing Menino doesn't have his hands in.

[Beton Brut]

I'm happy to see that this doesn't involve taking city property, as that removes a major obstacle to development.

Ron, the city would have negotiated a new police station, and maybe a new public school, if the project scope could have included that property. Also, by including the city property, the tallest buildings on the site could have been moved further away from the Greenway, allowing additional height and density.

[Ron Newman]

Once the development gets going, there's always potential for it to eventually get bigger, as seen over the past few decades at the Prudential Center.

[DZH22]

Once the development gets going, there's always potential for it to eventually get bigger, as seen over the past few decades at the Prudential Center.

Meaning what, Menino wants a new crown for the stubby 400 footers we are going to end up with?

[PaulC]

Ron, the city would have negotiated a new police station, and maybe a new public school, if the project scope could have included that property. Also, by including the city property, the tallest buildings on the site could have been moved further away from the Greenway, allowing additional height and density.

I would expect that those parcels will be developed eventually when the market is right. There is only so much space the city can absorb at once. I hope that these buildings are tall but this would not be the best spot for the city's tallest, I'd prefer that to be in the financial district or at the back bay station.

One of my favorite comments from the meetings a few years ago was a west ender complaining that the new towers would ruin the west enders skyline view. Nothing like feeing entitled.

[blade_bltz]

Anything SF can do, Boston can do better. But I don't know that they're doing a single thing.

Uhhh...it's been my distinct impression since moving out here a few years ago that the exact opposite is true. SF always seems to outdo Boston in every conceivable way. A few things that immediately come to mind:

1. Jass posted a picture of Mission Bay in the Fan Pier thread. It's like the Seaport...except with light rail, and with hundreds of housing units u/c and (thousands more on the way that won't mysteriously get converted to commercial by the mayor).

2. As dzh pointed out, SF completed two 650' towers, Millennium Tower (2009) and One Rincon Hill (2008), along with two 450 footers in 2008.

3. Where Boston puts up 3-4 story infill, SF puts up 6-8 story infill....in 3-4 story neighborhoods. And lots of it.

4. Where Boston is overflowing with college kids, SF has super-educated recent college grads. Who actually spend money on stuff.

5. Boston has a master plan for massive housing development (4100 units) on a peninsula in the south eastern part of the city, Columbia Point. SF has a master plan for a much more massive housing development (10,500 units) on a peninsula in the south eastern part of the city, Hunters Point. And it's starting in July.

6. Boston's version of an infrastructure boondoggle is the Big Dig (a highway project), or the Silver Line (BRT). SF's version of an infrastructure boondoggle is building a Central Subway for the LRT (from 4th and King to Chinatown and North Beach). What I would give for such a "boondoggle" in Boston...

[minsamol]

Why dont we send a letter to the Mayor???? We could tell him that the city of Boston cannot accept this. We are falling behind...!!!

[whighlander]

No offence to a recent immigrant to the HUB

SF has its Goods and also its Bads

Architecturally -- when it is good it is very good Chinatown, Golden Gate) when it is Bad -- e.g. Moscone it Stinks

However -- From the intellectual standpoint there is no comparison if you take the Greater Boston area it is the single largest collection of brainpower on the planet -- consider just the stretch of Mass Ave. between Porter Sq. and the River -- you can walk it in about 30 minutes (or 5 minutes on the T) -- you have two of the top U's in the World (say in the Top 10 to avoid gross volume of arguments) and a couple of other colleges / U's as minor accompaniment

While Boston U and Northeastern are hardly H and MIT -- they are major internationally known in their own right and they are nearly back to back (although one two different branches of the Green Line) with the MFA in the middle and a dozen smaller places right next to them

There are many others -- but I would call attention to the potential of UMass Boston -- which is just really in its nascent development state and only about 10 minutes from MIT on the Red Line

Boston / Cambridge IS the Hub of global Innovation -- SF actually mostly depends on Berkeley and Stanford for any street cred

What Boston could use is a branch of the Red Line starting at UMass Boston near JFK Library (you could call the new station JFK/UMass and rename the existing one something like Kosciusko) the new branch would cross under Southy (stop near to Castle Island), stop next to the Cruise Terminal / Design Center; stop behind the BCEC and then go down Summer St. to a stop at Museum Wharf and connecting to the existing line at South Station

[gooseberry]

Wow, you walk really fast.

[stellarfun]

Uhhh...it's been my distinct impression since moving out here a few years ago that the exact opposite is true. SF always seems to outdo Boston in every conceivable way. A few things that immediately come to mind:

1. Jass posted a picture of Mission Bay in the Fan Pier thread. It's like the Seaport...except with light rail, and with hundreds of housing units u/c and (thousands more on the way that won't mysteriously get converted to commercial by the mayor).

2. As dzh pointed out, SF completed two 650' towers, Millennium Tower (2009) and One Rincon Hill (2008), along with two 450 footers in 2008.

3. Where Boston puts up 3-4 story infill, SF puts up 6-8 story infill....in 3-4 story neighborhoods. And lots of it.

4. Where Boston is overflowing with college kids, SF has super-educated recent college grads. Who actually spend money on stuff.

5. Boston has a master plan for massive housing development (4100 units) on a peninsula in the south eastern part of the city, Columbia Point. SF has a master plan for a much more massive housing development (10,500 units) on a peninsula in the south eastern part of the city, Hunters Point. And it's starting in July.

6. Boston's version of an infrastructure boondoggle is the Big Dig (a highway project), or the Silver Line (BRT). SF's version of an infrastructure boondoggle is building a Central Subway for the LRT (from 4th and King to Chinatown and North Beach). What I would give for such a "boondoggle" in Boston...

You left out Treasure Island. San Francisco has a lot more available land to work with than Boston does, so its unfair to compare the two in that regard.

San Francisco doesn't have anywhere near the land-owning non-profits that Boston has; the non-profits are a big economic engine in Boston though.

The economics of San Francisco are driving African Americans out, which is allowing their old neighborhoods to be redeveloped. Percentage of blacks living in San Francisco is down to 6 percent. The percentage is 4x times higher in Boston. Conversely, there are about 4x more Asians living in San Francisco than in Boston (percentage basis).

It is as difficult, if not more so, to build tall in San Francisco than it is in Boston. San Francisco sometimes inhibits development and growth by referendum, which is harder to overcome than mayoral fiat. San Francisco voted by initiative to basically ban new shadows on parks.

http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8442

The grass is not always greener, though the weed may be.

[KentXie]

You left out Treasure Island. San Francisco has a lot more available land to work with than Boston does, so its unfair to compare the two in that regard.

San Francisco doesn't have anywhere near the land-owning non-profits that Boston has; the non-profits are a big economic engine in Boston though.

The economics of San Francisco are driving African Americans out, which is allowing their old neighborhoods to be redeveloped. Percentage of blacks living in San Francisco is down to 6 percent. The percentage is 4x times higher in Boston. Conversely, there are about 4x more Asians living in San Francisco than in Boston (percentage basis).

It is as difficult, if not more so, to build tall in San Francisco than it is in Boston. San Francisco sometimes inhibits development and growth by referendum, which is harder to overcome than mayoral fiat. San Francisco voted by initiative to basically ban new shadows on parks.

http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8442

The grass is not always greener, though the weed may be.

And yet their architecture designs are far more superior and far taller than Boston's. Why's that? Because developers know what a blowhard the mayor is, how difficult the BRA is, and how whiny the NIMBYs are and how much power they hold. Why do business with a city where the NIMBYs, mayor, and the BRA dictates the design of the structure? That's what professional architects are for. If it is true that it is more difficult to build tall in SF than Boston, then at least in SF the developers have the power to dictate the design, not the mayor, not the NIMBYs, and not the BRA. It may be a more difficult process, but at least the buildings they designed has a chance to see the light of day.

[whighlander]

to Gooseberry -- I actually did it in one hour -- but it was a walking tour
30 minutes might be fast for some and you can definitely not stop to smell the roses

to Blade_bitz -- a lot of the college kids that Boston / Cambridge is overflowing with are grad students -- many working on Ph.D.'s -- I think that qualifies as Supereducated in most venues -- and they do spend money as well

If Boston's Innovation economy has an Achilles heel -- it is the high cost of housing for the recently supereducated who typically have the choice of a long commute or moving out of the area -- however, that problem can be addressed by the cities involved making it possible for developers to provide a range of attractive housing options including downtown

A lot of that means cutting taxes and regulation at all levels of government -- in the long run, BOS, SF, Austin are not so much competing with each other as they are globally competing with London, Singapore, Tokyo, Bangalore, Shanghai, etc., -- the top 20 or so planetary centers for innovation

[stellarfun]

And yet their architecture designs are far more superior and far taller than Boston's. Why's that? Because developers know what a blowhard the mayor is, how difficult the BRA is, and how whiny the NIMBYs are and how much power they hold. Why do business with a city where the NIMBYs, mayor, and the BRA dictates the design of the structure? That's what professional architects are for. If it is true that it is more difficult to build tall in SF than Boston, then at least in SF the developers have the power to dictate the design, not the mayor, not the NIMBYs, and not the BRA. It may be a more difficult process, but at least the buildings they designed has a chance to see the light of day.

Have you ever been to San Francisco?

One Rincon Hill, not much love shown. Read the comments.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/01/from_failed_flip_to_foreclosure_flip_and_five_othe rs_at.html

Transbay Terminal
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/04/transbay_terminal_plans_revised_refined_and_unveil ed_to.html

Again read the comments, about how Transbay is going to screw the people who paid gazillions for their condos in the new Millennium Tower on Mission St. And OMG, a new park on top of Transbay and thus the shadow law comes into play again.




http://www.sftreasureisland.org/modules/showimage.aspx?imageid=234

^^^The planned development of Treasure Island. One tower, a few stubs, and lots of green parks.

[datadyne007]

That is way too much parkland for a development that size.

[KentXie]

Have you ever been to San Francisco?

One Rincon Hill, not much love shown. Read the comments.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/01/from_failed_flip_to_foreclosure_flip_and_five_othe rs_at.html

Transbay Terminal
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/04/transbay_terminal_plans_revised_refined_and_unveil ed_to.html

Again read the comments, about how Transbay is going to screw the people who paid gazillions for their condos in the new Millennium Tower on Mission St. And OMG, a new park on top of Transbay and thus the shadow law comes into play again.




http://www.sftreasureisland.org/modules/showimage.aspx?imageid=234

^^^The planned development of Treasure Island. One tower, a few stubs, and lots of green parks.
I didn't say anything about how people felt about the building after it was built and after it failed to sell due to the downturn in the economy. I was speaking about, even though SF may have a harder process to overcome, the buildings and the designs are of better quality than anything built in Boston in the past decade.

[metasyntactic]

That is way too much parkland for a development that size.

Supposedly the goal is to have a self-sustaining community and part of that parkland is actually going to be dedicated to a farm. Maybe that might require more land than usual? That said, it's in the middle of the bay away from other people so I don't see why they don't build it even denser.

[stellarfun]

That is way too much parkland for a development that size.

Arguably, one of the best undeveloped views left in the continental U.S.

http://askmissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SanFranciscoFromTreasureIsland_052003_2560x9991.jp g

^^^^ Picture is too large for here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/irinazhyzhyriy/5501181543/

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/sanFrancisco/SanFranciscoSkylineAtDusk.jpg

[kennedy]

The grass is not always greener, though the weed may be.

Ha, I see what you did there.

[Mike]

Developer’s new plan for garage site is well-received
By Jerry Kronenberg
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - Updated 2 hours ago


A Boston developer unveiled plans to turn the 4-acre Government Center Garage site into a seven-building complex of offices, residences, hotels and stores.

“We’re obviously recreating (the parcel) to make it a much better and pedestrian-friendly place,” HYM Investment Group managing director Tom O’Brien said yesterday in presenting details of the project to the Boston Redevelopment Authority. “We’re really excited about that.”

HYM, which has tried for years to redevelop the 45-year-old garage, last month announced plans to scale back an original $2.2 billion plan that ran into regulatory opposition.

The company previously wanted to build two skyscrapers — one 42 stories high and the other 52 stories — but the BRA and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino opposed that plan’s size and height.

To win them over, HYM removed the development’s original project leader and replaced him with O’Brien, a former BRA chief. O’Brien spent some 18 months revamping the project.

The revised plan released for the first time yesterday calls for preserving much of the existing garage but surrounding it with:

• eight- and 45-story office buildings with 1.2 million square feet of space;

• two hotels, one 28 stories and the other 22, with a total of 600 rooms;

• three residential buildings hosting 750 apartments and condos and ranging in height from 12 to 38 stories;

• 50,000 square feet of retail space.

O’Brien said the proposal will bring life back to downtown Boston’s Haymarket/Bullfinch Triangle area, a once-bustling neighborhood all but dismantled as part of 1960s “urban renewal” efforts.

“This area was once a huge hub of activity, and we think it can be again,” he said.

O’Brien said the first building, a 38-story residential tower, would be finished in four or five years and cost about $140 million.

Advisory board members and local residents appeared to endorse the scaled-down plan.

“It’s really a wonderful proposal,” board member Francine Gannon said. “I really commend you (and) I think you’re doing a good job.”

Added local resident Jim Bath: “I believe that this is a good project — as opposed to the other one, which was not suitable.”


Link (http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1352751&position=1)

[BostonUrbEx]

Too stubby. This is the prime spot for height. It's right in the center of the peninsula and it's the most isolated section of Boston in regards to flightpaths. Tallest is only 45 stories? And the next tallest is 38?

I have a few words for Menino if I ever catch him on the street. He needs to stop dicking around and stringing along the BRA.

[KentXie]

How much you want to bet that only one tower will be built before the entire project stalls.

[Shepard]

What does this mean that they are preserving "much" of the garage?

Huh?

[JSic]

^Yeah, that was the most disturbing part of the article...

[DZH22]

If they could stretch that 45 story tower into at least 615', we would have a new 3rd tallest... It's Boston, can't hope for much until the mayor dies, but extending the skyline towards North Station with another IP sized tower would be ok...

Someday, a tall tower will be proposed here and they won't be forced to lop off any height. (nah, probably not, I'm still sleepy)

[JSic]

^Yes, that would be OK, but we are running out of spots for legit 700'+ skycrapers and this one of the spots that makes the most sense for one.

[DZH22]

^Yes, that would be OK, but we are running out of spots for legit 700'+ skycrapers and this one of the spots that makes the most sense for one.

Trust me I know this all too well, and I am more for height (that makes sense, not just throwing up a 1500' tower among 500'-600' towers) than basically anyone. That being said, we haven't had a 600' tower built since 1987, and nothing OVER that since the 70's. It would be about time we got ANYTHING new and substantial.

[Ron Newman]

If any of the garage is going to be kept, I hope the part built over Congress Street is still demolished.

[TheRifleman]

^Yes, that would be OK, but we are running out of spots for legit 700'+ skycrapers and this one of the spots that makes the most sense for one.

Agree^^^..........This is a good spot for a 700 ft. The problem is the NorthEnd Residents would erupt.

Can they recoup all those parking spots for the city?

[whighlander]

^Yeah, that was the most disturbing part of the article...

I'm guessing some sort of Pru like Platform development

If I read the statement it sounds as if the office top of the garage will be removed and perhaps 1 or 2 floors of parking will be converted into the underpinnings for the low rise stuff

The towers will be sited on the ground at the periphery of the garage but will interface with garage floors to provide their parking

This could be a great development on a challenging and very opportunistic way -- probably wont be -- but we can hope

In the ideal world:
1) the tallest towers will still top out at 200m -- more probably 175m
2) the garage vanishes inside of a cluster of buildings
3) The basement connects with the Orange and Green Lines
4) There is a lot of late evening, nightlife type commercial activity at the ground floor level -- this is well within a short walk of the Gaahhhden
5) Take advantage of the location on the Greenway

It has potential !

The fact that there is an ex-BRA guy in the lead will certainly reduce the need for grease on the skids to launch the project

[TheRifleman]

If the developer takes out the garage, How many spaces can he actually save? Can the city of Boston actually sacrifice more parking spaces in that area?

I'm not sure what the MBTA is doing these days but I believe they are the key to making a better city especially being more accessible. I have not seen too much effort in making a better TRANSIT or upgradable system.

They need to start expanding and building a better T-system so people would be less dependent on their Vehicles.

I would rather see a massive billion dollar project spent on expanding the TRANSIT system to make everything more accessible for people.

[whighlander]

Riffleman -- T is BANKRUPT, MASS is bankrupt, US Federal Gov't is Bankrupt

There will not be any significant expansion of the T for the next few decades -- they need to spend a bunch more money just replacing Red Line and Orange Line vehicles

Mean while -- the US, Massachusetts and the HUB have to continue doing business and living and that means accommodating commuters in single passenger vehicles

Private developers can invest in T related development such as:
1) already done: Pru, Alewife, Kendal Sq.
2) Quincy Center, Assembly Square,
3) and potentially the redo of Gov't Center Gaarge and Copley Place

The only real alternative is private enterprise building places where the people working in the KE can live and commute to work on foot

[AM354]

Definetly worth a watch, here's the meeting video

http://www.northendwaterfront.com/home/2011/7/19/hyms-obrien-introduces-new-development-complex-to-replace-go.html

[Beton Brut]

On parking: Why not bring Alewife to North Station?

If we need to replicate this capacity, assume 40% in the new developments. For the rest, look no further than North Station, over the tracks. It'll work for Garden game parking, and could be engineered to allow for future air-rights development.

[TheRifleman]

Riffleman -- T is BANKRUPT, MASS is bankrupt, US Federal Gov't is Bankrupt



Whighlander, Then if everything is bankrupt then why are the same assholes that got us bankrupt giving the taxpayers subsidaries to private projects like these?

Fan Pier 72 Million
Liberty Mutual 46 Million
Evergreen 55 Million
BCEC 200 Million (possibly in the pipeline)
JPM & Fidelity

IMHO leave the building to the private sector and give them a ton of leeway on Zoning issues.

The money up above should have been used for better infrastructure for the city. That is the key when you have a great TRANSIT system it will decrease the amount of cars going in and out of the city and your city will be more desirable for commuting, living and building.

[tobyjug]

^^^^ Inverse linkage!

[jass]

Riffleman -- T is BANKRUPT, MASS is bankrupt, US Federal Gov't is Bankrupt


Youve been watching too much fox news. The fed cannot go bankrupt, it is impossible.

[Lurker]

The Fed can't go bankrupt but it can keep printing money until it is worth less than the printing material.

WBUR (yes those commies) is reporting the state has a $730 million surplus. How quickly do you think that will squandered? I don't suppose we can get a tax rollback or local aid restored now that the state is no longer in the red. Someone I picture some no show hacks getting bonuses instead.

[blade_bltz]

He ain't talking about the Fed

[whighlander]

Youve been watching too much fox news. The fed cannot go bankrupt, it is impossible.

Not the fed -- the entity known as the United States of America -- a Federal republic of 50 independent states created by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States

As of now about $ 200 B per month flows in -- and unfortunately about $300 B per day is flowing out

What it translates into is borrowing about $4B per day to pay our obligations (in about $6B out about $10B)

Remember that after about August 2 the ability to overdraft the account is cancelled -- now capped by legislation of a few years ago -- setting the debt limit at $14,294B

from the Wiki article "Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. From the founding of the United States through 1917 Congress authorized each individual debt issuance separately.....Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917.established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling," on the total amount of bonds that could be issued....The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was established in 1939. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations (as authorized by each federal budget) as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling. Since 1979, the House of Representatives by rule has automatically raised the debt ceiling when passing a budget, except when the House votes to waive or repeal this rule....The most recent[33] increase in the U.S. debt ceiling to $14.294 trillion by H.J.Res. 45 was signed into law on February 12, 2010. "


But in and Out don't necessarily occur synchronously -- somewhere in the August / September time-frame there will come a day when the US Treasury needs to write a check bigger than what is in the cash box -- this will require prioritization of obligations -- maybe not quite Chapter 11 -- but clearly time to start thinking about how things are financed -- perhaps a return to the pre-WWI approach of Congress authorizing with the President signing for each bond issue -- e.g Obama 31, 2, 3.....

[whighlander]

Perhaps a return to the pre-WWI approach of Congress authorizing with the President signing for each bond issue -- e.g Obama # 1, 2, 3, .... say $ 1B per issue that would mean the President would be signing about 30 -- $1B bond issues per week

[vanshnookenraggen]

Let's keep this on topic.

[dshoost88]

Definetly worth a watch, here's the meeting video

http://www.northendwaterfront.com/home/2011/7/19/hyms-obrien-introduces-new-development-complex-to-replace-go.html

You're right, it is worth a watch. Thank you for sharing!

[whighlander]

Most impressive presentation

O'Brien and company have clearly done their homework and learned from others mistakes

I think that at this stage of unveiling -- that the project looks as if it can be a winner

In particular:

this first residential tower will be interesting technically -- building it through the roof of a working garage

the 45 story office tower will end up at the scale of International Place

the rest are smallish -- but look good from the street perspective and the open plaza replacing the greenway's ramp parcel

[GW2500]

Any part in that 1.5 hour clip in specific have some renderings?

[palindrome]

nothing specific designed yet. Just some massings and potential streetviews.

[dshoost88]

Any part in that 1.5 hour clip in specific have some renderings?

If I remember correctly, I think it was about 20 or 21 minutes in where they have several renderings.

[GW2500]

Cool thanks.

[datadyne007]

Damn, I have a ton of homework, but I just can't stop watching! Great meeting/presentation! Love the ambitious 600ft office tower. It also amazed me how no one could remember the heights even after he said it 3 times. God bless him for his patience.

Edit: and give up the school already. How much more do you want?

[Ron Newman]

Does the part of the garage that is on top of Congress Street get removed? I don't care if the rest of it stays, as long as that part goes.

[datadyne007]

Does the part of the garage that is on top of Congress Street get removed? I don't care if the rest of it stays, as long as that part goes.

Yes, of course. That is the whole point of the project. The entire eastern half of the Garage comes down. That part of the garage isn't demolished until phase 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D are completed on top of the existing garage (probably 15-20 years from the start). Pretty awesome engineering techniques. The west part of the garage stays and gets hidden by the new residential towers and retail.

[briv]

Eh, not of course. The current proposal keeps the garage until some unspecified time when phase 2 of the pipe dream goes forward.

When pressed of to give a time frame for completion the development team was evasive. In other words, don't bet on it.

[datadyne007]

Eh, not of course. The current proposal keeps the garage until some unspecified time when phase 2 of the pipe dream goes forward.

When pressed of to give a time frame for completion the development team was evasive. In other words, don't bet on it.

As he said, the phased process is how we don't end up with a hole in the ground. Yeah, they could just tear the thing down, but what would that leave us with? No parking at all, as that part of the garage is crucial, and a hole in the ground.

And yes, I noticed he was evading the scheduling issue, but he was smart by not making any comments because those words would be set in STONE for the rest of the life of this project. When the project ends up taking 50 years they will come back and say "you originally quoted this as 20." It's so early in the process. Let them actually do analysis about this issue and then discuss it at the next meeting when they can give official numbers.

[briv]

20 years? You realize this is a generation? 50 years? You realize this is the majority of the average person's life? Why do we have to wait this long to fix a so easily fixable urban planning catastrophe like the Congress St Garage? You also realize that in the span of 20 years, there are places on this planet that create modern cities from scratch who's size dwarfs Boston? But you're asking us to accept that it may take the majority of our lives to tear down a single fucking garage? Come on. Who wants to live in a city so backward?

[datadyne007]

20 years? You realize this is a generation? 50 years? You realize this is the majority of the average person's life? Why do we have to wait this long to fix a so easily fixable urban planning catastrophe like the Congress St Garage? You also realize that in the span of 20 years, there are places on this planet that create modern cities from scratch who's size dwarfs Boston? But you're asking us to accept that it may take the majority of our lives to tear down a single fucking garage? Come on. Who wants to live in a city so backward?

The plan would never be approved if tearing down the entire garage was the goal. Whether we like it or not, everyone is far too obsessed with parking. There is a concrete (some pun intended) reality here that a part of the garage must stay built and that part of the garage does not have the infrastructure to support itself (drums, proper circulation, etc). The garage needs to undergo a series of reconfigurations, which will occur in the phases as the city enjoys the completion of new towers + retail. I understand that we want to enjoy these things now now now, but this is forward planning for a much livelier future of the neighborhood. It is nice to enjoy the reward after the project is finished, but the process and willpower of the proponents is just as crucial.

**Also, I just threw out 20 years as a random number. It could certainly be shorter. It has nothing to do with this project.

[briv]

You're quite the apologist for the status quo.

[datadyne007]

You're quite the apologist for the status quo.

So while all this tireless lobbying to tear down the garage is going on, the project could actually be moving along toward something that is better. We keep getting nothing in Boston and yeah, I am the kind of person that believes in most cases, something is better than nothing (ie: my opinion on the RKG).

[jass]

Why not just use the standard Boston approach?

"Of COURSE we'll save the historic garage! We'll just build around it!"
*Two weeks later*
"Our contractor made a mistake and it was structurally unsound, so the whole thing had to be demolished. Our bad"

We all know this is S.O.P. around here.

[jass]

So Im watching the video....

"2,300 spaces, and it never fills beyond 50% capacity"

Are you freaking kidding me?

I NEVER want to hear "parking in boston is hard" ever again.

Or "theres a lack of parking downtown".

North End NIMBYS? You CANNOT complain that a)this project is relevant to your interests because its so "close"
and
b) Complain about parking.

NEVER AGAIN.

[KentXie]

As soon as I find a job elsewhere, I'm Leaving. This. City.

[Justin7]

So while all this tireless lobbying to tear down the garage is going on, the project could actually be moving along toward something that is better. We keep getting nothing in Boston and yeah, I am the kind of person that believes in most cases, something is better than nothing (ie: my opinion on the RKG).

I agree with this sentiment in most cases, but is this really something better?

Usually when something covers a parking lot, a lot of people here complain about the lack of height, the cheap materials, etc. I think, well, it may not be great, but it's certainly an improvement. The parking lot was the problem and now the parking lot is gone.

Here, the garage is the problem. Not so much the lack of an office tower, but the actual existence of the monstrous, concrete, obstruction. The thing could be gone in a month, but instead, let's build on top of part of it and maybe at some future time, say twenty years from now (in other words, long enough for things to change, for people to forget) we'll tear down the rest. Of course we will.

This project is bullshit.

[cden4]

I've come to realize when people complain about parking, they are complaining about free or cheap on street parking, which there is a short supply of, in part because it's so cheap and everyone wants to use it!

There really isn't a lack of garage parking downtown. You just have to be willing to pay for it. A lot of garages have weekend rates of $9 or $10 a day, which is a really good deal if you ask me.

[whighlander]

Justin -- I don't think you've actually been involved in any real project (whether a $B of just adding a deck behind your house) -- if you had you'd realize that plan A, B, and C are essential as undoubtedly something is going to impede the original plan

Toss in the requirements imposed by the process for building in Boston (with a few exceptions such as Liberty and Vertex) and a project of this magnitude will take time -- and yes it might be 20+ years before the 3rd incarnation of the the last phases get finished

Think the Pru saga -- the Tower gets built and then immediately people start complaining about the exposed open air elevated strip mall without the convenient parking lot -- fast forward about 20 years -- the glass gallery gets built -- fast forward another decade Mandarin Oriental gets built -- and now it looks as if last of the Pru will be finished -- a grand sweep of time since the early 1960's -- 50 years or so -- to a functional and actually quite pleasant complex of buildings -- could it have been done better sooner -- perhaps -- are there still things which should be done to improve it -- Definitely

Now consider the Gov't Center garage -- its been there for 40 years -- if in 5 years the first few towers encapsulating it are done -- the rest might take another decade -- but -- unless the garage parking revenue suddenly gains sufficient economic value to remain as is -- the lure of the rest of the 2.5 M sq. ft. of development will drive the owners of the garage to finish the project -- and that means taking down the elevated bunker over Congress St.

By the way -- by keeping the eastern half open while complex construction is underway on the western half -- the project will clearly take longer -- but it will be much easier to finance as there is a Vertex-like revenue stream -- the few M$ per year from people parking in the garage

[whighlander]

Besides -- building the towers while the garage is operational will be a great project to watch from the pure engineering and project management groupy perspective

I watched while a 2nd level was added to Burlington Mall all the time with a few pedestrian detours it stayed open -- they drilled and installed massive structural columns working above the roof of the existing single level high ceiling-ed mall

These kind of projects are fun to watch -- if they produce a superior final product -- so much the better

In this respect -- with the exception of Liberty Mutual - its been quite a long time since the developer of the project had as personal a relationship with the project -- in this case the he owner of the garage is the developer -- and they are not absentee landlords -- but their office is right-there -- they see the area daily -- so 'll be willing to go out on a limb that they will take some pains to do a good job

[datadyne007]

Besides -- building the towers while the garage is operational will be a great project to watch from the pure engineering

He called the supercolumn diagram slide "boring" and skipped over it! (Though, judging by the questions some people were asking, none had engineering background so it would have been boring) I was like noooooo! Talk about this awesome engineering technique!

[whighlander]

He called the supercolumn diagram slide "boring" and skipped over it! (Though, judging by the questions some people were asking, none had engineering background so it would have been boring) I was like noooooo! Talk about this awesome engineering technique!

Right-on

Especially so -- since the space underneath some parts of the garage is full of stuff (including voids for subway tunnels, etc)

[itchy]

Developer surges with giant projects
Ex-Hub official helps lead HYM development co.

By Brendan Lynch
Monday, July 25, 2011

... HYM plans to submit the project notification form for the revised Government Center Garage development to the BRA in the fall. If the seven-building, mixed-use project gets the necessary approvals in the first half of 2012, HYM expects to break ground next year.

http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0725developer_surges_with_giant_projects_ex-hub_official_helps_lead_hym_development_co/srvc=business&position=also

.

[type001]

That's great and all, but SST was supposed to break ground 4 years ago.

[whighlander]

And the connection with HYM and SST is ?

[statler]

The Boston development gauntlet.

[whighlander]

The Boston development gauntlet.

Stat -- I think that the ownershi/ lease rights for SST is more complex than the Congress Street Garage

In the case of the SST there is the DOT (Mass) as well as some longterm leases to Amtrak

In the case of cong. st. Garage -- there is only the issue of Congress St air rights -- the rest is owned and controlled by the developer

[TheRifleman]

In Banker & Tradesman they claim A loan secured by Boston's Government Center garage is in imminent danger of default?

Not sure what this means for the development for Ex-BRA head Tommy O'Brien........Another ex-political HACK.


Off the topic?
Anybody watch 60 Minutes on Steve Kroft reports that members of Congress can legally trade stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill.
I have no clue how anybody can respect our leaders anymore. They are truly scum.

[BostonUrbEx]

I have no clue how anybody can respect our leaders anymore. They are truly scum.

Need more folks like Ron Paul. Agree or disagree, I feel like he's the only one who isn't slimy.

[vanshnookenraggen]

He isn't slimy but he also doesn't live in this reality.

[BostonUrbEx]

He isn't slimy but he also doesn't live in this reality.

Sometimes you have to look deeper than the face value on his policies. They rely heavily on theory, though, so it's a tough sell. But you have to face the fact that regardless, little could be done with congress working against him anyway. But at least he'd have the executive power to withdraw our troops and cease our unjust military interventions. The whole country should be able to rally behind him on military issues, except the military industrial complex fools. And he should be able to get the Dems behind him on most social issues. Of course his economic policies are what Democrats are scared of. People think we have a free market, but we don't. So they think his support of the free market means more corporations would be stomping the common man. Truth is, if corporations wanted free markets, they would rally behind Paul and manipulate public opinion in his favor. But they wouldn't be coddled by the government and bailed out for lining their pockets at the expense of the citizens, so they don't want it. And thus they prop up Obama and Romney. Repubs (not neocon ones) *should* be behind him on economics. So frankly he is at least 2/3rds there for both Dems and Repubs, whereas Obama, Romney, Cain, and Perry? They're 1/3 at best. Voting for Paul is a big FU to all the other politicians who don't even actually believe they're working for the people. They're all bought and sold, and they're laughing all the way to the bank. This guy has been consistent for decades, and isn't looking to benefit special interests. That's all we get with anyone else.

[TheRifleman]

^^^^
I will be voting for Ron Paul. He actually believes in Freedom. The rest of these hacks want a world govt controlled by the corps.

Back to the thread.
Anybody know if the default on the Congress St Garage would pose a problem for the development?

[PaulC]

This project seems to be progressing. I see it on the North End Waterfront meeting agenda for 11/22/11 as a 'brief update'.

http://www.northendwaterfront.com/