Hey, there! Log in / Register
Why does Tom Menino keep trying to stuff things into the South Boston waterfront that don't belong there?
By adamg on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 9:10am
In one of those wide-ranging interviews reporters love so much, Tom Menino yesterday proposed building "a medical research and residential complex on the South Boston Waterfront" - using some of that political capital that's apparently burning a hole in his pocket.
He explains: "Researchers love to get together. They speak their own language. They like to hang out together."
Isn't that why God gave us the Longwood Medical Area? Where, as the Outraged Liberal notes:
There are at least two research buildings on hold (including one hole in the ground) ... where the majority of researchers ply their trade near the institutions that employ them. It's always possible another life sciences firm will decide to join the overbuilding, but live-work space?
Granted, most researchers don't live in the medical area, but there might be a reason. Even scientists like to take a break from work every once in awhile.
Earlier:
The first dumb idea.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Because he's a doofus
It's no more complicated than that.
Answer
Follow the money. Menino has no control over state aid and that is shrinking, the city has little control over the odds and ends of miscellaneous revenue that makes up 20% of city income. That leaves building new properties to generate incremental taxes. Unfortunately we build and they don't come - so we end up with growing capacity, slack demand and a flat valuation on our commercial space - pushing more and more taxes onto residents as I've warned.
Menino wants to provide more services and take care of his employees (can't fault him on that front-he's like most CEO's in that regard). However, in a region with an aging population that isn't growing - you can't do that without ultimately driving people away. Let's pray that both of these ideas remain where they belong - in the space between Tom's ears.
Perhaps the population isn't
Perhaps the population isn't growing because of the lack of affordable housing?
Also, even with the recession, Boston still has some of the lowest office vacancy rates in the country.
Actually, Boston has one of
Actually, Boston has one of the lowest office vacancy rates of major U.S. cities. We do need more space. The other problem is residential supply which is way too low. The problem isn't that we build too much, but that we don't build enough.
As for this idea, well, the particulars seem kind of wacko, but generically speaking, we need more development, and the seaport is a place with lots of of available parcels.
why all the big building
Menino will want to put something there that will get federal money and federal leeway on building codes, and some kind of tax abatement if possible. I'm sure there's a line item somewhere for medical research complexes. In this way he preserves political control of the building project, so the builders have to go to him to get political approval from the feds, and have to go to him to get approval for the abatement.
As for our low vacancy rates, the biggest consumer of land in Boston right now is non-profit. That's because we have the highest commercial tax rate in the area. I've said this at length elsewhere so I won't go into it here.
If our office vacancy rate is so low ...
... then why can't the Filene's developers change their plan to an office building and get financing for that?
Because the banks are too
Because the banks are too busy with interest rate arbitrage to take on something risky.
Who's going to rent it?
If we build more commercial space (Chiofaro/Aquarium, South Station, Gov't Ctr, Hayward Place, 880 Boylston, Christian Science Ctr and so on) where will the people come from to rent it - maybe a few will move out of class B and C space and into class A if supply goes up and prices down or maybe (BIG maybe) you'll attract some of the suburban offices - but to my point driving commercial supply up and rents down just adds zero incremental value but adds new taxes. If you build it, where will they come from and unless they are willing to start ponying up high rents - building more office space does nothing for the residents of Boston other than drive up their taxes.
I'm with you 100% on the residential - especially supply targeted at people making under $100k a year-not the luxo towers we've been building that are now sitting empty.
One step at a time - build the residential - that will drive the commercial - not the other way around.
I'm saying we have to do
I'm saying we have to do both at the same time. As for who will rent new office space, I can't give you a list of companies because that would be speculation. But a low vacancy rate compared to other cities would tend to imply that more space could be built and rented. If we want economic growth, we can't simply wait for a company to say "let's open an office in Boston." We need to already have a facility in place.
I read that interview...
...and not a word (at least printed) about getting the hole filled in at Downtown Crossing. Or about what's going to happen with Columbus Center (that's part state I know). Or about the properties in Allston (owned by Harvard). I'm all for thinking ahead, but it seems like we've got to finish the projects we've started first!
Too bad we couldn't debate the merits before the election
When pressed on plans or ideas during the election season, Menino refused to say what any of them were, stating only that he had some. I took that to mean that he didn't have any. But now look, he's had ideas and plans all along -- he just wouldn't tell us what they were until his seat was safe. Oh, I'm so frustrated by that, I could just spit.
What else is a politician
What else is a politician going to do? Talking about development plans in this city is a good way to alienate somebody who might otherwise vote for you. The real shame is that Boston residents are so firmly in the NIMBY camp. The result is that only corruption is a powerful enough force to get something built. And yet we need to build to keep Boston vibrant and affordable.
I'm a nimby
Boston is very dense now and has a lower quality of life than surrounding communities. You say that the way forward is to do more of that.
I've been a nimby and gone to great expense to defend my home against unwise development. The signal that Boston residents have gained real wealth and some respect for themselves will be more nimbyism, not less.
Federal subsidy for dense development, plus a body of progressive literature of excusing over-densification, and a class of growth-uber-alles professionals --- this is not a political class that can be trusted without a serious check and balance.
Lack of a Plan
The big problem is that there seem to be no rules, guidelines, formulas, or plans driving any of this.
The "density" picture in Boston is very uneven, as is access to infrastructure that supports it.
Some areas should be densified, others remade to include open space, etc. What Boston seems to get is "what can the BRA do to promote ego monuments and profits for its buddies".
Good planning includes what you describe - residential areas that are already maxxed out in terms of the ability of residents to move around, get to work, shop, park, etc. shouldn't be pushed to higher densities. Those areas that could be built out at more density need the infrastructure to support it. Boston lacks a systematic mechanism to bring every level of society to the table to figure these things out on both local scales and regional scales.
I somewhat agree with this,
I somewhat agree with this, but in order to plan thoughtfully, NIMBYs need to make some concessions. When I read about buildings being stopped because they will cast a shadow for 15 minutes on Copley Square, that is giving far too much voice to neighborhood activists. It is very difficult to even build medium density in this city. The complaint always comes out that it is too tall, not enough parking, too big a shadow, too much window, etc. All of that is part of what makes a city a city rather than a suburb. On that note, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on open space. Boston already has quite a bit of open space. Does it really need to be an element of every project?
Very hard to draw that line ...
When there are no criteria for decisionmaking, no rules about what development goes where, and no planning done ahead of time.
Building-by-Building decisions are what breed that ever present NO and BANANA response. Systematic planning helps build concerns into the plans, and then gives good reason to resist NIMBYism on the back end.
That's not to say that NIMBY doesn't exist - I've seen it myself when the North Cambridge Stagnation Committee was pitching fits when a 1.5 acre industrial site was slated for fewer units per acre than the neighborhood. They were demanding single family homes be built on half acre lots near Alewife. Um, no.
That last paragraph says it
That last paragraph says it all for me. If you want 1.5 acre lots, move to Westwood. Many (I won't say all or most) NIMBY based issues stem from an unrealistic idea of what the city should look like, which is to say that it shouldn't look like a city. I can't abide by that sort of thinking.
Take the failed Columbus Center project as an example. One of the biggest complaints by the NIMBYs was that it did not do enough to clean the emissions coming from the turnpike and rail lines. They actually argued that there was no currently viable technology to properly scrub the emissions and that therefore nothing should be built until such a technology exists. Keep in mind, that the alternative is the status quo, emissions and all. The project was stalled long enough to lose its financing just as the big crash was getting ready to happen. So now there is no building, no scrubbers. And Turnpike air rights development is something that was well planned through a comprehensive process. That wasn't enough to get the project done.
It's people like you who are
It's people like you who are the problem. You say Boston is more dense than surrounding communities? Of course it is! It's a city, the surrounding communities are suburbs. It's the overly wealthy like you that protest any development anywhere in the city to protect your current property value that hold Boston back. If you had a brain you would realize that constructive and controlled development increase civic life (and property values). But I'm sure you'd rather walk around back bay or beacon hill with your ascot, content to let the city stay in stasis, always with both feet in the past, just for yourself. I say this as a home-owner as well, but self-interested people like you make me sick.
Great idea!! Let's do this:
I found two huge swaths of underdeveloped city land - all they have are single family houses on large plots of land near all kinds of bus and rail transit. They are called West Roxbury and Hyde Park - how about we let developers buy the houses up by the bushel, change the zoning so they can build 350 foot residential towers and do all the new development there? Then we won't have all the rich people downtown pushing us around and complaining about shadows on the historic parks and buildings.
(for the record - I'm in Swrrly's camp - make a master plan that calls for reasonable growth, make zoning rules that allow for that growth and a permitting process that's transparent so all the FOT's (friends of Tom) don't get special deals. You can do this and not have to build buildings that cast shadows on Copley Square - but it makes it hard for the incumbent mayor to legally extort donations to his campaign if he has no control over who gets to build what and where)
You are purposefully extreme
You are purposefully extreme to illustrate a point, but I for one would love to see greater density in the outlying neighborhoods. No, I wouldn't support using eminent domain to buy everybody's houses up, but there is no reason why a developer should be prevented from assembling a group of parcels and building something bigger.
One of my favorite projects in Boston right now is the re-development of the Washington-Beach housing project. The building on the corner is five stories high. Roslindale hasn't seen anything like that before. If a few more buildings could be built along those lines, say between Forest Hills and Roslindale Square, we'd get a lot of affordable housing out of it.
I'll agree
That's a perfect example of appropriate development in my book- and far better than giant luxotowers looming over Copley square. Personally I'm a fan of rezoning places like Rozzie Square storefront with 3-4 stories of office, apartments and condos upstairs. I'm not totally opposed to downtown development - but with the city population growing at less than one half of one percent - we could easily grow Back Bay/South End/Bay Village/Stuart St Corridor etc. by 1-2% annually through moderate development (100-150 feet depending on location). Unfortunately, developers make that unaffordable because they know if they hold on long enough and scream loud enough they will be able to build towers on the land they simply paid too much for on the assumption they'd eventually be able to "build to profitable" rather than "build by right".
On the first part -- zoning
On the first part -- zoning for Rozzie. The new zoning actually did a decent job regarding multi-story buildings. It will take time for this to become apparent, because there isn't much interest in razing the current square, but eventually we will get more density there. The first example is going to be on the lot next to the library which is slated to become a four story building with stores on the first level and commercial for the other levels. That one building will really change the overall look of the square, because that is the lowest density side and it will become the highest density side.
On the second part. I have no problem with medium density, and generally prefer it, but we shouldn't lay all blame on the developers alone for the economics that dictate towers. It's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Chioforo paid too much for the harbor garage, shame on him. But he's not going to take a loss on it, which either means a big fight resulting in a tower or two, or he sells it to somebody else with more stomach for that fight. In some ways, the first issue (more density outside the core) should eventually fix the second (too much density in the core), but we have to recognize that some parts of the city are still going to primarily attract sky scrapers.
Zoning
Interestingly, the building next to the library isn't going to end up being 4-stories. The developers tried to cut it down to 1 but Main Streets, among others, preassured them to at least build two. Building dense or tall isn't the magic wand to economic development. You build densly and tall because the value of the land demands it. "If you build it they will come" is a myth when it comes to density and height. You can only charge so much for rent per square foot in Roslindale, West Roxbury, Hyde Park, etc. and that, not grand desiegn schemes, is what drives development. That is the most difficult part about urban planning. You can re-zone Brookline Avenue and watch 12-story towers go up overnight like sim-city but if you did the same in West Roxbury you would probably not see any change for years (if at all). And I've said it before, the cost of living in this City isn't a "supply and demand" issue - its a quality of life issue. People want to live here because of what the City is, how it feels, and what it is like to walk down the street. Building more (unless you're talking Robert Moses style building) isn't going to result in lower prices.
Roslindale's new zoning
was an interesting process to observe (that the minutes were posted online offered a great opportunity to follow differing perspectives). But it was also indicative of the challenge--the BRA convenes a group to devise new zoning for the neighborhood, the group worries that no matter what they propose, the ZBA will just grant variances, thus watering-down the purpose of conformity within the code. So Roslindale opts (well, at least it seemed to me) to go for a more expansive minimum dimensional requirement for development (bringing it in line with West Roxbury, except in the Square)to buffer anticipated variances. One could say that it is the anticipation of inconsistent policy/process among the triumvirate (BRA, ISD, ZBA)that breeds nimby-ism.
Bad process
I see this from a different prospective. I believe it's the city, it's "planning" dept., and the NIMBY's that make appropriate sized development unaffordable. I think the developers in Boston mainly go into these projects proposing huge projects because they expect lawsuit after lawsuit from every Joe in the neighborhood no matter what the scale of the project is. Not to mention the fact that the zoning is set purposefully strict so that the BRA and the mayor can extract goodies from the developer in exchange for variances.
This adds up to huge costs for the developer upfront and we've seen that there's only so much of a upfront bleeding that a project can take. If you were a developer would you propose a project from the get go that just barely breaks even by going small only to see that potential profit disappear at every lawsuit and public meeting or go big and watch some of that profit be whittled away through the long and drawn out process?
Ya know, there actually is developable land down here
Take a look at Rivermoor Street in West Roxbury and the old Stop & Shop warehouse in Hyde Park (right on a major rail line, even).
Washington Street to Dedham Square could make for a wonderful high-density, transit-oriented zone IF you extended the Orange Line down it (sorry, but 67,000 variants of the 34 bus won't cut it, not with Washington being a two-lane road from Forest Hills to the West Roxbury Parkway). It's already fairly densely packed along much of the route, has buildings that could be bought up and turned into denser developments, Roslindale Square is the perfect little urban village, etc.
Will never happen, of course, but it's fun to daydream sometimes.
Rivermoor?
I'm curious... what do you think should go on Rivermoor that's not there already? It's an out-of-the-way cul-de-sac. Are you thinking an office park or something? I'm thinking traffic jams through Dedham.
And for an Orange Line extension, are you thinking of doing it down the right of way by Belgrade or the right of way by Hyde Park? Either way diverges pretty quickly from Washington.
I puzzle about development sometimes, and whereas I'm nowhere near the expert that SwirlyGrrl is, it seems to me that development happens largely because there's a use for the new things in the locations they get built. The Staples got put in because there are people around that location who will use it. I already have. But you can't put a Costco somewhere you can't park cars, and you can't put an office building somewhere workers have a hard time getting to it, and you can't put small retail somewhere people don't walk by. Development in Rozzie Square would be great, but how many restaurants have failed on Washington Street? Is there really a market for more? Should we have a pool on how long the Jazz Cafe stays open? The candy store didn't even make it to Go.
So much development planning just seems like wishful thinking. You really can't have more retail without more housing density, and nobody wants that in their neighborhood. It seems to me that the only recent successful story of neighborhood development in Boston is the Brookline Ave area. I thought the renovated Sears building would be a white elephant, but I was very wrong. It's the concentration of residents who can support the retail, and it's the convenient location that makes people want to live there. Given, I wouldn't, and the only place I liked (Boston Billiards) is defunct, but still, it keeps moving.
If you wanted to increase development in Rozzie, you'd basically have to go up, and there's only a small area where you could do that. But nobody's going to invest unless they think they'll make money, nobody makes money off low-income housing, and nobody who's not low-income really wants to live above a store in an out-of-the-way corner of the city.
I'd love to read that
ETA: comment is meant for EM Painter
I'd love to read that literature. Most of what I come across stresses the importance of density as a requirement for adequate infrastructure. Post some links and I'll check it out.
But I take serious issue with your statement that quality of life in Boston is lower than surrounding communities. I live in Boston because I value what a city has to offer. If you don't, why do you live here? This is a serious question, by the way. If you live in Boston, it must present something of greater value to you than a surrounding community. So how can you claim that the quality of life is lower? If it is, move.
Boston vs 'Burbia
I still live in Brighton because my kids have friends here and I don't want to move at time in their social lives that is pretty crucial. But the quality of life here is seriously degraded for the income level. Two places I am very familiar with, just because I live near them, are Watertown and Waltham. Both have much better stores and restaurants, even though their geography is identical to Brighton's. You could throw Brookline in there too.
Boston doesn't have to be this way. It was planning decisions and tax policies which made it this way.
Maybe it's a Brighton thing
The quality of life is pretty good in Roslindale. I wouldn't want to live in Brighton either. All those kids puking on your lawn, and the streets never go the right places...
Brighton is perfectly fine
Friends live in Oak Square and they love it. Probably the best "Y" in the City. Neighbors banded together to keep the Presentation School from being closed, express bus into town, Pike nearby. Edison School is now a K-8. life is good.
Don't get me wrong
I'm not slagging on Brighton. I wouldn't want to live there, but obviously some people do. I'm just wondering why EMPainter seems to think the quality of life in Boston is so low, when it seems so high to others (myself included). I guess if it's not a Brighton problem, maybe it's just a personal problem.
Boston could be a lot better
I'm saying it could be a lot better for the kind of people who live in Boston and the kind of money we pay for everything. Moody St in Waltham is surrounded by group homes of quite seriously impaired people, and yet it is a great place to hang out.
Yes somehow I have lived in Brighton 20 years without offing myself or others. I think it could be a really nice place to live but it is seriously polluted in many ways. It makes me angry when I see so many of Boston's (particularly poor) residents so poorly served.
That's why they call them poor
Quality of life among the poor is bad? Well, that's why they call them poor, innit?
I recall myself thinking as a child, "I don't want to be poor when I grow up, because the quality of life sucks."
I recall trying to sleep at night, in far upstate New York, in a house with no heat, where a glass of water would freeze next to my bed at night, where rats ran over me at night, where the landlord beat me up because he didn't like my attitude, until I got a flick blade and pulled it on him. I remember that as "poor quality of life."
I remember being poor in the Midwest as well, where a block party was watching the crack house across the street burn down and a good laugh was answering "no" to all the questions before I donated blood plasma for food money. Quality of life - also not good. Hey, but rent was cheap.
Come to think of it, the main reason I went to college was to improve my quality of life. It seems to have worked (the second time, at least). Maybe that's why I think the quality of life is so good in Boston - I only moved here once I was a grownup with a good job.
On the other hand, I don't recall anybody particularly "serving" me when I was poor. It seemed like more of a "serve yourself" kind of deal. Is there something particular you think the city government should be doing to serve the poor in Brighton better?
1 and 2 families worked fine
Not trying to solve all the problems of the city. I just think we could have better stores and the poor people would be better served by commerce if we forgot the giant projects and allowed the city to grow the way it already has --- people building 1 and 2 family houses and owning them.
Density itself is a non-issue
What makes for a decent quality of life is really more a matter of proper neighborhood design than whether or not an area is "densely" populated.
In other cities I have visited in Europe and North America, the key factors I see in that feel-good quality of a neighborhood are access to transit and street life. It is difficult to get to work and back and shopping areas if transport is bad. It is difficult as well if there are no storefronts anywhere. Boston doesn't do so well in many areas with storefronts - many cities require them in the first floor of buildings in downtown areas and major arterials, but Boston does not. That not only raises the price of starting a business, it creates dead zones that force people to walk or travel long distances to reach commercial areas - which favors big boxes in turn.
You might be surprised
Swirly makes a good point - I haven't seen the actual numbers, but it's my understanding that Back Bay and Beacon Hill are two of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Boston. When you think about it - it's probably true because the buildings are all side by side with mostly multiple units to 4 and 5 story buildings (north and south ends are typically 3-4 stories) - other neighborhoods have bigger buildings -but they tend to be separated from the adjoining buildings. Anybody have a source on density by neighborhood?
density
I agree that density is not necessarily a problem. The problem is you have a redevelopment policy which favors hitting certain measures like density and ignores the other factors outlined by others.
Those things can be achieved, but not by government programs favoring one factor or another, it's just too complicated. We could have that stuff in Boston if they just eased up on the central plans and let little things happen by themselves. We have the money. Instead building is done either in huge lots or not at all. It's done this way because only huge developers have the cash to buy in or get the tax abatements.
Interesting point - but is it even possible these days?
This is a very interesting point. There's a reason why Somerville is one of the most dense towns in the country when it's basically a town of 2-3 story buildings. You can get super dense if the lot sizes are small enough.
That said I don't know if this type of development is even possible due to:
1) Zoning/lot size restrictions: I'm guessing the lots in the Back Bay wouldn't pass muster when it comes to fire access, minimum lot requirements, etc.
2) Arbitrary "Green Space" requirements: every single development needs a patch of green no matter what. Despite the fact that a million little green spaces doesn't come near to a real park.
3) Developer pay-back: can developers even make money on many small lots given the economies of scale of large buildings versus small buildings? You need to duplicate a lot of materials when you create many small houses.
An interesting perspective on Boston - my wife is from China and was expecting a intense urban experience. When she arrived and saw all these small, wooden houses her first reaction was that America wasn't what she had imagined it. In China, only the poor live in wooden structures or buildings less than 3 stories. Actually I'm always amazed that we live in a "high-density" area of America. If you relocated Boston in China it would be like a very large farm town. Even in my wife's very small town her mom lives in a 3-4 floor condo development.
I think it's doable
you may not be able to or even want to recreate the back bay - my thoughts are more storefront with residential upstairs - kind of like Fenway - but with storefronts - then 2-3 stories of apartments/condos above. Again the key is to stop making all these deals with the developers - make the rules clear up front and stick to them so the developers don't pay $20 million for a property generating $1 million in gross rent knowing that with a wink and a nod they can get around zoning. As for green space, the city can't maintain the green space it has - insisting on more is insanity! Not opposed to rearranging some but would rather see an improvement in quality even if it means a reduction in quantity.
Well, a different politician
might not have spent years squandering development opportunities just because he didn't particularly like the folks behind the proposals. This has resulted in more than a little bit of frustration not just among potential developers, but also companies that early on located businesses on the waterfront only to find themselves marooned on the isolated and vacant shore.
Alas, the day will be saved by a gaggle of researchers who speak the same language and enjoy hanging out together. Not sure this amounts to the type of bold thinking one might need to keep under the vest lest voters are dismayed.
What's the "Ellis Island" of Boston?
Like Ellis Island, a) what are the locales around Boston during the same waves of immigration the people landed?... Jeffries Point?... some medical station?... b) Where were the Cunard docks?...
c) Where are there any online maps, diagrams pointing to the locations or location?...
One of these comment threads is not like the others...
:o\