Fwd: Building unions offer deal on housing costs - The Boston Globe

[Eva Webster]

In last night’s BAIA meeting, a developer tried to argue that using unionized labor, which developers in Boston are generally expected to do, makes it impossible to build condos/owner-occupied housing in Brighton.  If that were true, how come that condo projects have been, and are being built left and rigth in all parts of the city, including non-downtown neighborhoods? 

Fwd: Boston condo market hits new heights in 2015 - The Boston Globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/14/boston-condo-market-hits-new-heights/fdOkQKLoactMcXqgqTXyVK/story.html#comments

Even if one were to buy the argument that the unions should be blamed for developers’ desire to build transient housing in Allston-Brighton, the argument no longer stands because it turns out that earlier this year the unions agreed to offer lower labor costs to help with creation of housing that needs lower construction costs to be economically viable. (Below is the Globe article on this subject that I mentioned in the meeting.)

Fwd: Building unions offer deal on housing costs - The Boston Globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/03/06/building-unions-offer-deal-housing-costs/QpyRbe4koK5uwQ7lJPDw0I/story.html#comments

Also, in the case of the project at St. Gabriel’s, an argument can be made that the presence of the large and costly historic preservation component (the Monastery building and the Olmsted landscape) ought to qualify the developer for significant relief as far as union labor costs go — especially since there is so much construction going on right now that the unions don’t really need every single project that is being proposed.

The Chestnut Hill Waterworks pumping stations would have never been restored for successful adaptive reuse (beautiful, spacious condos and the Waterworks Museum) if a compromise re. labor costs could not be struck. There are times when it is necessary to think outside the box to save important historic resources, and to help create badly needed, stable, owner-occupied, economically diverse neighborhood housing.

[David Hall]

As a question, did the Waterworks use union labor? Based on the demonstrations outside 1501 Commonwealth, I assumed that didn't. Some of Eva's earlier comments about BAIA opposition to 1650 Comm Ave made me believe it wouldn't either (and talking about 1650 Comm Ave and condos, does anyone know when it might start construction?  It was approved by the BRA last August; is it held up by something post-BRA?)

[Merrill H Diamond]

David,

108 of the total of 112 units at The Waterworks were built by union labor, specifically Suffolk Construction, headed up by the son of my late friend and partner for that development, Ed Fish.  Ed decided to use his son's open shop firm for the last building to be renovated.  

The picketing and signs during the construction of The Lancaster at 1501 Commonwealth Avenue was the result of our partnering with another developer who had the right to select the contractor and decided to use an open shop contractor.  Both of the aforementioned decisions were attributed to me and not my partners who, according to our respective partnership agreements, had the right to make those decisions…and did.  

When we presented The Aberdeen at 1650 Commonwealth Avenue, our ability to appear before the BRA Board was thwarted by Brian Doherty of Boston Building & Trades and the BAIA based on our lack of "community support."  This was even subsequent to our agreeing, in writing, to use 100% union labor on 1650 during the last six months of our attempting to be heard by the BRA Board.  I have no idea if Brian Golding, the Executive Director of the BRA or the Mayor were involved in the decision to prevent us from developing The Aberdeen.

Consequently, after not receiving a response from Brian Doherty after six months of continually attempting to do so by phone and in writing, we were forced to sell the project to another developer who took the same design with even fewer community benefits through the BAIA and the BRA Board and received approval.  

The project was just sold again and should be starting construction some time over the next few months.

For the record, Eva Webster had nothing to do with our being prevented from presenting our design for The Aberdeen at 1650 Commonwealth Avenue to the BRA Board and she remains your community's best advocate for quality architectural design and home ownership in the Allston-Brighton sections of Boston.  I'd like to think that Eva's support for The Lancaster at 1501 Commonwealth and our architect's elegent design for the condominiums at The Aberdeen at 1650 Commonwealth Avenue evidences that.   

Best,

Merrill

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION Residential, LLC

231 West Canton Street, Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Mdia...@diamondsinacori.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Eva Webster]

Thanks, Merrill, for the kind words about me – much appreciated, since there are always some folks who don’t see the wisdom of promoting good architecture, preservation, and homeownership, and they will beat me up just for being an advocate for those things.  Some young renters in Allston even think that Eva Webster is THE very obstacle that stands between them and their ability to save maybe 50 bucks a month on rent (because that’s how much they would save, at the very most, and most likely nothing at all, even if we turned all of Allston-Brighton into a mini-Manhattan height- and density-wise). But sorry for digressing…

Just to clarify something to David, and others who may not be familiar with the Waterworks project:

The last building on the Waterworks site, the one that was developed for adaptive re-use with non-union labor, was the Museum Building (High Service Station). The costs of restoring its elaborate 19-th century masonry and preserving the unique interior (Hall of Machines) with union labor would have been prohibitive, and would sink the project. We would have never gotten the great publicly accessible museum — a rare and well-respected cultural venue in this area — as well as some unique condos that bring needed economic diversity to this part of Boston, if the union labor issue on this project was handled in a rigid manner, without needed thoughtfulness and flexibility.

In my opinion, the same approach should be considered on the St. Gabriel’s site where preservation challenges are also significant — but it has to be done as part of sensible and well-focused negotiations between the community and the developer (fingers crossed that the BRA would be a helpful and objective force in that).  Naturally, we should not be endorsing the use of non-unionized labor just to increase the developer’s profits — but to get a development project that saves what makes the St. Gabriel’s site unique, beautiful, and memorable.

At the BAIA meeting last week, all commenters were focused on the density and character of the proposed housing (nearly 700 hundred of efficiency rental units), as well as parking and traffic — and we forgot to even mention the fact that the developer wants to demolish the St. Gabriel’s church, and only preserve the Monastery building (which he has to do because the  Monastery is landmarked).

However, the church is also an amazing structure that attests to human achievement and gives that location a historic feel and a sense of place. It could be developed for some unique and highly desirable condos — not unlike those that were developed in the Low and High Service Buildings at the Waterworks. 

Pushing against developers self-interest in order to preserve important examples of the neighborhood’s architectural and cultural heritage, and to ensure economic diversity, is very hard work.  Committed, driven unpaid volunteers (a/k/a neighborhood activists) who are trying to do that are in short supply, and they should be appreciated, not maligned.

There are some people who are newcomers, or relative new comers to the neighborhood, who have shallow roots, or no real roots at all in Allston-Brighton (could be gone tomorrow if they find a better rental somewhere else), who don’t really understand why certain things are important around here besides just adding generic housing units in generic looking buildings.

Eva

On 6/5/16, 12:58 PM, "Merrill H Diamond" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of mdia...@diamondsinacori.com> wrote:

David,

108 of the total of 112 units at The Waterworks were built by union labor, specifically Suffolk Construction, headed up by the son of my late friend and partner for that development, Ed Fish.  Ed decided to use his son's open shop firm for the last building to be renovated.  

The picketing and signs during the construction of The Lancaster at 1501 Commonwealth Avenue was the result of our partnering with another developer who had the right to select the contractor and decided to use an open shop contractor.  Both of the aforementioned decisions were attributed to me and not my partners who, according to our respective partnership agreements, had the right to make those decisions…and did.  

e

--
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.

[David Hall]

Just to be clear, I wasn't implying Eva Webster was blocking 1650 Comm Ave; in fact, the opposite, I was referring to her email (linked below) expressing disappointment in BAIA blocking the project from going forward. I think she and I are in agreement that (a) your group did a great job at the Waterworks, which is my favorite "hidden attraction" for out of town visitors, and (b) we would prefer a great development at 1650 Commonwealth to a gravel lot.

 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/allstonbrighton2006/YRNpwvVcN1E

One piece of data on homeownership and condos is the rate of owner occupancy at 1501 Commonwealth. Following the deeds, I believe the property breaks down as:

18 Affordable units

37 Market rate units

I believe the affordable units are required to be owner-occupied, so this project was always going to start with a decent owner-occupancy rate.

The market rate units were what I really wanted to follow as that gives some indications about what mix of owners other condo projects might attract. Of the 37 market rate units, 19 of them filed a Declaration of Homestead, which basically implies they are owner-occupied.

So, at least 50% of the market rate units are owner-occupied at the moment. Hopefully this would imply that new, quality condo projects would see a similar owner-occupancy and not be totally bought up by small time landlords as is the status quo in many existing condo buildings that have 20-30% owner occupancy.

-David

--

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 a topic in the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/allstonbrighton2006/zUZ4hLoOJtc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael DeMarco]

Some, certainly not all, union behavior can be downright disgraceful. Instead of insulting a developer and then demanding a commitment that night how about demonstrating the added value to a prospective client and the community?

Curious, how did the Cleveland circle project play out with union labor? Glad they stood their ground at a meeting with such tactics.

Thanks,

Mike 

Sent from my iPhone

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.

[Eva Webster]

Thanks, David, for digging out info on owner-occupancy at 1501 Comm. Ave. — I was curious about it myself.

Since 18 affordable units there are owner-occupied (and just the other day, I learned directly from Sheila Dillon that the DND, which was the seller of the parcel, insisted that they be owner-occupied), and 19 market-rate units are also owner-occupied — that brings the number of owner-occupied units in that building to 37 (out of 55 total), which is over 67%.  I believe that the Waterworks has at least the same, and possibly quite a bit higher owner occupancy.

So these are great successes for owner occupancy (though still a drop in a bucket of what Allston-Brighton needs).  I think that 1501’s elegant and timeless building design (with lots of balconies and terraces), plus the woody area in the back with a green wall of mature trees, plus a large setback from Comm. Ave., and a decent amount of parking (I think the ratio was 1:1), are the key factors that made that building attractive to owner-occupants.

I pay attention to such factors even when a project is rentals (and I cannot do anything about its rental nature), just because there is always a possibility, however remote, that a rental building may become a condo building down the road. If the building is well done and has sizable units, it makes successful owner-occupancy possible — if not, it will continue to be a transient rental building, only with many owners instead of one.

So I believe that it’s the quality of life that a project can provide that ensures (or can doom) owner-occupancy.  The higher quality of life, the better chance that the owners will want to live there, or have their family members live there — or when the time comes, sell to others who seek homes for themselves.  Additionally, buildings that make a high quality of life possible elicit a certain amount of devotion and engagement from owners who want to protect those positive qualities.

When the DND issued a Request for Proposals for the 1501 Comm. Ave. site back in 2007, there were 4 developers vying for the designation — and all except Merrill were proposing rentals, and mostly small units (the Allston-Brighton CDC was among the developers that wanted to build there run-of-the-mill rentals in a boxy building).  Not to brag, but it was yours truly who spearheaded the effort to ensure that the site would be developed for homeownership — I still have in my computer tome-like letters that I wrote back then to City Hall and folks in the community, to make it happen. 

The reservations of those who think that condo buildings can become just like rental buildings (with units owned by absentee owners) are not unfounded — but even in condo buildings with low owner-occupancy, there are always some owners who live in the building and care about the building and the neighborhood much more than most of the renters who only pass through the building.  (The only exception to that that I know of is Parklake on Comm. Ave. near the Reservoir, which has a great community of caring renters, perhaps largely because the family that owns that building is not a typical absentee landlord, and they value stability and order.)

The lives of owner-occupants in condo buildings with low owner-occupancy may not be the best, since absentee owners who constitute the majority are less interested in investing in quality of life improvements than owner-occupants would.  But I will take a condo building that has even a small number of owner-occupied units over a typical rental building any time.

Also, there is a simple way to ensure that a condo building becomes, or remains, majority owner-occupied by making sure that the condo documents mandate that the majority of units be owner-occupied.  That helps with financing for prospective buyers as well, and helps attract future owner-occupants. I believe that most condo associations downtown have such clauses (but since I never lived in a condo building, I’m not sure how it works).

E.

[cleveland-circle-community]

On 6/5/16, 10:27 PM, "Celine Sellam" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com on behalf of celine...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Eva

I think the waterworks has close to 100% owner occupancy as they have some strict limitation on rentals...

Celine Sellam, esq., REALTOR

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage

1375 Beacon Street

Brookline MA 02446
(617) 304-2270

Member of International Sterling Silver Society

(awarded to top 16% of all sales associates internationally)

 

The best compliment I can receive are the referrals from my clients and friends! 

Sent from my iPhone