Hey, there! Log in / Register

Developer wants to turn tiny Fenway HoJo's into big Hilton

By adamg on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 8:58am

And condos or apartments. The Herald reports.

Neighborhoods: 
Fenway
Free tagging: 
Development


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By anon on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 9:21am.

just what the city needs, more condos!

By rageagainst on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 9:47am.

oh i'm sorry was i complaining again? we're you complaining?

By Matt L on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:29am.

With prices what they are in Boston, the city CLEARLY has to many condos, right?

Personally, I get excited every time new condos get built. Maybe some day there will be enough housing in Boston so that everyone won't pay an arm and a leg to live in a closet.

By anon on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:38am.

the city needs more housing in general. More housing of any type is never a bad thing.

By Haviland on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 11:36am.

The anti-condo crowd here in the Fenway is composed of subsidized renters whom want more rental units to choose from and do not want land values increasing, which would lead to increases in their rent. They could care less about the neighborhood, and city at large, it's all about keeping their own good deal nice and cheap.

By rageagainst on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:38pm.

You are probably right in those who live near there being concerned with their personal interests. I think most people would. I don't think anyone wants their rents to increase anytime soon. But that should not be the only concern.

Now on the other hand you can't blame the guy for wanting to put $ money into, and and something nicer into an area.

Housing cost and rents are among the highest in the nation here. The main reason is that there is not much available land in boston as it a relatively small area compared to its the population. It wasn't originally built to handle the population it currently has like some other cities. That is why the price per sqft is so high, leading to the high housing costs. I remember reading about a small parking space the size of a car (just a piece of concrete not even covered) sell for 1 mill $ in the back bay. That should tell you something about the cost of land here.

So it seems to me the only logical way to fix that is too build high rises (whether it be condos or apts) to increase the supply of available units for the amount of available land you have, and thus bringing down the price and making it more affordable. Now there are drawbacks to this too like blocking views, etc and with all the old run down housing stock in boston it would be nice to have something new and modern to live in. Personally I would rather live in house, but that's the trade off you make for living in the city. I'm sure it gets more complicated. I guess they would have to be strategically placed. That's where these urban planners and development experts come in.

By Stevil on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 1:23pm.

First of all - there's plenty of land - but nobody wants to take on the establishment to build where we should the way we should. The city is growing about 0.5% per year - we should be adding say 1% to housing stock per year - however, over the past 8-9 years we have grown housing stock by a TOTAL of about 2%.

Where to build? - instead of cramming high priced tall towers with expensive condos (the city likes these because they bring in huge tax revenue with few kids in the schools, low demand on fire/police etc. - unfortunately only about 2-3% of the population can afford these and the category is massively overbuilt right now)- how about starting in places like JP, Rozzie Square, Dudley, Centre St. in West Rox etc. - storefronts with 2-3 stories of apartments on top with studios, 1 br's and 2 br's for young professionals. Target rent $750 to $2000 per month or sell $200k to $500k. Keep in mind - Washington DC is much smaller than Boston, has no tall buildings (I think about 15 stories is the limit and even those are rare) due to zoning restrictions and still supports about the same population.

As for $1 million parking space - no way - one went for about $300k a few months ago - but that was a VERY unusual situation - a building with 2 multimillion dollar condos auctioned off the space. Typically prices for those spots is 65-75% LESS.

Finally - we don't have any planning experts - there is little to no planning in the city. By design we approve projects as they come along (which is a lousy way to build a city).

By rageagainst on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 2:03pm.

I guess I assumed every city had urban planning experts. They even have degrees for that and with all the schools and geniuses around here.. you see where i'm going with this.

You are right it was 300k not 1mill but either way that's still insane.

I noticed all the areas you suggested building were all south of the city. (JP, Rozzi, etc). Why is that? Since there are mostly older houses in these areas where is the open land to build on? Are you saying to build apts on top of existing storefronts? I guess that would be an option but who would want to live on top of a storefront when surrounded by houses? I wouldn't want to live on top of a storefront would you?

By alex on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 2:25pm.

No, I probably would not want to live above storefronts. However, there are people that would like to live in the neighborhood that cannot afford the other housing in the area. This would satisfy that group. Housing over storefronts also tends to increase safety by putting eyes on the street after the stores close.

By Stevil on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 4:25pm.

At the BRA?

Anyway - I consider most of these areas I mentioned more West than south - not saying no development downtown - but keep in mind areas like Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End are protected historic districts - limiting where you can build. Mainly I'm familiar with those areas I mentioned and see tremendous opportunities. You may not realize it - but probably half of Newbury street is housing above and people pay a fortune to live there. People live like this all around the world. Many may prefer a standalone home - but the demographic trend is actually away from single family homes as aging baby boomer empty nesters downsize to avoid all the work that goes with owning a home (I have lived in a Condo all my adult life and I love it! No housework on the weekends.)

If I were 25-30 making $75k a year as a young professional - I would love to live on top of a storefront in Rozzie Square - everything I need is out my front door and the train gets me downtown in less than 15 minutes.

I'm not objecting to building in Fenway - go for it - but we need other housing as well in the neighborhoods to attract a younger and more economically diverse population.

By Haviland on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 1:22pm.

"It wasn't originally built to handle the population it currently has like some other cities. "\

Boston used to have 200,000-300,000 more people living here than it does now.

My complaint is that every time a developer attempts to add more units to the city, which would reduce prices overall by increasing supply to meet demand, every 'affordable housing' group attempts to extort subsidized units. It doesn't matter that everyone else has to work to be able to afford to live in some new fancy building, they want a discount because they're 'special'. By running this racket, development is slowed, and the cost of housing goes up for everyone else not so 'special' to receive a subsidy.

The BRA created the problem of a lack affordable housing by being a slow meandering organization, attempted to buy off neighborhood groups with a band-aid solution, which in the end only made the problem worse.

By Late to the game on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 3:16pm.

Thank you Haviland! Boston inedeed used to have approximately 800,000 residents in the 40s-50s, and its not like the City tore down 300,000 units of housing between then and now. Although I support building more housing as a general rule (particularly on the blighted parcel in question), there is plenty of space in the City for more people with existing housing stock. The real gripe is affordability. However, this City is not unaffordable (to many) because of short supply, its unaffordable because there is high demand to live here due to a good, high-paying, job market and the general livability of the City (reputation, sports teams, cultural amenities, etc.). Furthermore, the number of high paying jobs is what drives the price of housing in the City - its called market forces. Boston, like most other US cities, has seen a renaisance over the past 20 years drawing people into the city - and back into the city - who would have headed strait for the shiny suburbs 30 years ago. Many of those people earn alot of money doing what they do in the financial, legal, healthcare, and education industries. High demand allows people to charge a premium for what they are selling, whether it is a sparkling new luxury condo or a fixer-upper in JP. I'm not saying its not an issue that deserves attention, or that its useless to build more housing, but its not about a supply-squeeze. Personally, I think its more of a macro, concentration of wealth, issue endemic to our time, but that is just the cynic in me. In other words, there are just alot more wealthy people in Boston (and far fewer good paying blue collar jobs) than there were when I was growing up.

By riggssm (not logged in) on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 4:17pm.

My issue with your conclusion ("every time a developer attempts to add more units to the city, which would reduce prices overall by increasing supply to meet demand, every 'affordable housing' group attempts to extort subsidized units") is that there Really Ever Isn't any affordable stock added unless it's mandated. The self-adjusting, free market is a myth.

I make a comfortable salary for my age/education, but my housing choices are extremely limited. It's a streetcar suburb, roommates or a dump (pick two).

I can't be one of your theoretical tenants paying $4,000 a month for a one bedroom condo.

Perhaps this is why young professionals (24—30 years old) move away after college. We want to live in the same neighborhood we work and play in, but until we're earning over $100,000 a year, it's hard to do that.

And for some of us, that's not acceptable, so we move away to cities that are less dysfunctional.

By Stevil on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 4:26pm.

nuf said (oh and you can take the "residential exemption" and lump it in with this too)

By riggssm (not logged in) on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:53pm.

I don't see how this affect subsidized renters. Is there something I don't understand about the subsidy?

I can see how it will affect the already over-priced market apartments though. They'll go from $2,400–$2,900 for a two bedroom shithole to $2,800–$3,300 for a two bedroom shithole.

By Kate on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:08am.

As absolutely disgusting and rat-infested as the HoJo is, I can't envision a huge complex there. It would block my apartment's view of Fenway!

By J on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 2:03pm.

Good. The hojo is a prime example of how that road resembled a highway strip more than anything inside the city. The rooms were bad, the building was terrible, and whats worse is that they charge 300$+ a night during parts of the year. There is so much demand for hotel rooms in this city that people are willing to pay 300$ to stay in a 50 year old motel!

Anybody know how many rooms it has now? The article mentioned how many rooms they want, but not what that compares to.

HOWEVER, I believe this is the same guy that owns the mcdonalds lot. I'd prefer he build their first then knock down another building.

By anon on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 5:15pm.

This smells very Pizzuti to me. Would love to know what Janet Marie Smith's plan for this area was before she was given the heave-ho.