680 unit development at 159-201 Washington St. (St. Gabriel's)
Eva Webster
Nothing has been filed with the BRA yet regarding this development, but it appears that the developer is currently in discussions with construction unions.
If anyone has problems with opening the links below, the text of the second article is pasted farther down.
Fwd: 680-unit Brighton development would focus on grad students
Fwd: Developer will pursue ‘a new template’ for $200M Brighton housing project - Boston Business Journal
Developer will pursue ‘a new template’ for $200M Brighton housing project
CC&F has proposed a 610,000-square-foot project featuring four new residential buildings on an 11.8-acre site at 159-201 Washington St. in Brighton, adjacent toBrighton High School. The residential buildings would range in height from three to seven stories, and have 400 off-site parking spaces.
The rehabilitated monastery would serve as a central leasing office that includes amenities such as a co-working space similar to WeWork or Workbar and a cafe, said CC&F CEO Jay Doherty. CC&F will develop the housing in partnership with Chicago-based Blue Vista Capital Management, which owns Peak Campus, one of the largest student housing companies in the U.S.
“We think there’s tremendous demand,” Doherty said. “We’re going to try very hard in terms of creating a new template of how to construct it, and how to target a demographic that may be better served in these more efficient facilities with more amenities and more transportation options than by five or six people in a one-family in Brighton, and hopefully free up that inventory for families.”
The project is designed to house the more than 4,100 graduate students that live in private rental housing in Brighton, which both limit housing stock available to families and other residents and puts upward pressure on the neighborhood housing market. Doherty said the project could house students from Boston College, Boston University and Harvard University, as well as nurses and other employees from St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center and the nearby Longwood Medical Area.
The Washington Street residential project will be wood-frame construction, as compared to the steel that often frequents high-rise downtown towers. Doherty said that it’s the first attempt at a large-scale wood-frame project with unionized construction in Boston. John Moriarty & Associates, the project’s general contractor, is working closely with labor unions to develop residential rates for this construction, Doherty said.
“We have not been as proficient in Boston in the mainstream, mid-market production of housing,” Doherty said. “The risk on rents of trying to build mid-rise housing wood-frame is much, much higher if you have to pay a pretty stiff land cost, so you’re better off to go for a downtown high-rise if you can find a site, and that’s been a major problem.”
Catherine Carlock covers Greater Boston's commercial real estate industry.
Joanne D'Alcomo
All I can say is that the developer is all over the place describing the tenants it is seeking. It’s a real mish-mash:
In one story linked in the email Eva supplied, Jay Doherty, of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, is quoted as saying he plans to provide housing for: “graduate students and others engaged in teaching, training, and research in a wide variety of professions.”
In another story linked in the email Eva gave, Doherty is quoted as saying the apartments could house not only students from Harvard, BU and BC, but, the story says, “nurses and other employees from St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center and the nearby Longwood Medical Area.”
Although the developer talks elsewhere in a story below about “target[ing] a demographic,” in fact the description of the prospective tenants – as described above from the quotes in the news stories – is quite a jumble and not “a” demographic. Based on the descriptions, one has to wonder: exactly who is it that they AREN’T seeking as tenants – other than apparently families, and retirees? (The developer is clearly not looking for families – which presumably means anyone with a child – because at one point in one of the stories, Doherty is quoted as saying that he hopes the new project would “free up” existing housing for “families.” And the developer is certainly not looking for retirees, because the language describing prospective tenants only refers to employed individuals.)
It looks like the developer is simply waving the “graduate student” reference from time to time so it looks like the development would be relieving some of the pressure concerning “students” who live in the neighborhoods (and let’s face it, undergrads are the big problem, not grad students). That tactic just seems to be a device to try to achieve high density, small apartments, rather than reflect any true plan of aiming at grad students, since it is really quite clear from the quotes above describing the prospective tenants that the developer is simply aiming for anyone who can pay the rents who aren’t families or retirees.
I don’t have an opinion on this proposed development yet because it’s hard to figure out what the true plan and intentions are, but I do hope that information coming from the developer is more straightforward as the process moves forward.
Joanne D’Alcomo
Joanne D'Alcomo
All I can say is that the developer is all over the place describing the tenants it is seeking. It’s a real mish-mash:
In one story linked in the email Eva provided, Jay Doherty, of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, is quoted as saying he plans to provide housing for: “graduate students and others engaged in teaching, training, and research in a wide variety of professions.”
In another story linked in the email Eva provided, Doherty is quoted as saying the apartments could house not only students from Harvard, BU and BC, but, the story says, “nurses and other employees from St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center and the nearby Longwood Medical Area.”
Although the developer talks elsewhere in a story below about “target[ing] a demographic,” in fact the description of the prospective tenants – as described above from the quotes in the news stories – is quite a jumble and not “a” demographic. Based on the descriptions, one has to wonder: exactly who is it that they AREN’T seeking as tenants – other than apparently families, and retirees? (The developer is clearly not looking for families – which presumably means anyone with a child – because at one point in one of the stories, Doherty is quoted as saying that he hopes the new project would “free up” existing housing for “families.” And the developer is certainly not looking for retirees, because the language describing prospective tenants only refers to employed individuals.)
It looks like the developer is simply waving the “graduate student” reference from time to time so it looks like the development would be relieving some of the pressure concerning “students” who live in the neighborhoods (and let’s face it, undergrads are the big problem, not grad students). That tactic just seems to be a device to try to achieve high density, small apartments, rather than reflect any true plan of aiming at grad students, since it is really quite clear from the quotes above describing the prospective tenants that the developer is simply aiming for anyone who can pay the rents who aren’t families or retirees.
I don’t have an opinion on this proposed development yet because it’s hard to figure out what the true plan and intentions are, but I do hope that information coming from the developer is more straightforward as the process moves forward.
Joanne D’Alcomo
--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
