ALLSTON LANDING:
A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
by
Don Klabin
Bachelor of Arts
Brandeis University, 1969
Master of Architecture
Harvard University, 1973
and
David Scott Ross
Bachelor of Environmental Design in Architecture
North Carolina State University, 1976
Master of Regional Planning
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1979
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
AUGUST 1985
@Don Klabin, David Scott Ross 1985
The Authors hereby grant to M.I.T.
permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly copies
of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Signature of the authors
Don Klabin
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
D. Scott Ross
Department of Urban Studies and Panning
Certified by
Lawrence S. Bacow
Associate Professor of Law and Environmental Policy
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Lawrence S. Bacow
Chairman
Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development
MASSACHUSETTS iNSTIrUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
SEP 0 5 1985
ALLSTON LANDING:
A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
by
Don Klabin
and
D. Scott Ross
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree
Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
This thesis contains a conceptual plan, feasibility analysis
and development strategy for Allston Landing.
The site of
approximately 40 acres at the Allston-Brighton exit to the
Massachusetts Turnpike is owned by the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority (MTA).
The MTA is expected to issue an RFP for
development proposals for the site during the coming year.
The thesis contains an analysis of conditions which will
affect the site's development potential and discusses in
detail the
critical issues which must be resolved for
development to proceed.
A preliminary market analysis provides insights into market opportunities and current economic
pro forma assumptions.
The information contained in the
analysis was obtained from interviews with community leaders,
city and
state officials, private consultants, adjacent
landowners and personal research.
This analysis creates the
basis for the proposed
development program and plan for the
site.
An economic analysis is conducted to demonstrate the
program's feasibility and sensitivity to critical pro forma
assumptions, such as land cost and market rent. The thesis
concludes with
a development strategy to implement the
proposed plan.
Lawrence S. Bacow
Associate Professor of Law and Environmental Policy
Thesis Advisor
ALLSTON LANDING:
A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER ONE
: DEVELOPMENT
.
FRAMEWORK.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Property Characteristics
.
7
Development Context
18
The MTA -
25
Development Powers and Procedures
Development As-of-Right
32
Development Schedule
34
Summary
35
CHAPTER TWO : DEVELOPMENT ISSUES .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
. ..
Traffic
36
Community Interests
39
Site Control
47
CHAPTER THREE
: PLANNING/MARKET OPPORTUNITIES.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Opportunities
53
Market Analysis
56
Market Opportunities
62
CHAPTER FOUR : DEVELOPMENT PLAN. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Options
68
Preferred Program
70
Conceptual Plan
73
Phase I
77
Summary
79
CHAPTER FIVE : FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Economic Feasibility Model
81
Results
82
Summary
88
CHAPTER SIX : DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Introduction
90
Site Preparation
93
Structure of RFP
95
Recommended Actions
98
Management Options
99
APPENDICES
A.
B.
Contacts/Directory...... .. a .
Permitted Zoning Uses...
.
.
.
.
.
103
106
EXHIBITS
I.
Location Map............................
II.
8
Existing Conditions.....................
Conceptual Plan......................... 74
Feasibility Model....................... 85
Sensitivity Graph....................... 87
III
IV.
V.
2
TABLES
Allowable Density via Existing Zoning...
Comparable Market Data..................
III. Allston Landing Development Program.....
IV. Sensitivity - 2 Dependent Variables.....
V.
Sensitivity - 1 Dependent Variable .....
I.
II.
34
59
71
86
86
1
INTRODUCTION
Turnpike Authority (MTA) assembled
the Massachusetts
In 1962
the right-of-way for the Boston Extension of the Massachusetts
parcel was taken via the Authority's
A particular
Turnpike.
plaza and the Allston-Brighton exit.
to
land (referred
Allston
as
a proposed toll
vicinity of
in the
eminent domain
power of
In excess of 40 acres of
Landing)
acquired
was
from
in the northwest quadrant of the Cambridge
private landowners
intersection, to
accommodate three
essential transportation related functions:
1) the access and
Storrow Drive
Street and
at the
egress ramps
relocation of
from the
2)
the
partial
(ConRail) freight
Central Railroad's
the Penn
warehousing operation
and 3)
Allston-Brighton exit,
site of the Prudential Center
the trailer transfer function required by the trucking
companies traveling the turnpike.
Since the
construction of
a
hub
service
for
The
Metropolitan area.
during the
interim have
rather exogenous
estate value
freight
transport
in
the
Boston
most significant changes to the site
not been
modifications on site, but
shifts in the locational attributes and real
of the
remote location
function, the
ConRail and the MTA
to maintain 20 years of active use of the site
have continued
as
the turnpike,
property.
Formerly considered
to be a
ideally situated for such a transport service
site is now considered by many to be one of the
most desirable and under-utilized sites in or around Boston.
N\3
3
more intense
recognition through
economic premiums
The
the
proximity
Bostonthe
to
Harvard Business School
of 40 plus acres further contribute to the
mere size
property's unique
these
mitigate
with
property's
to the
its adjacency
can
which
identity
an
maintain
marketplace.
Charles River,
and the
properties
on
still
and
Cambridge
available
of
scarcity
downtown locations have placed increasingly higher
parking at
issues
and
congestion
Traffic
developed.
been
since
long
have
other
Most
development.
accessibility
comparable
sites with
greater
far
deserves
which
an asset
many as
perceived by
now
transport is
for freight
efficient support
provides an
that
network
transportation
The same
claim.
support this
which
characteristics
distinguishing
several
has
The site
development opportunities
its
and enhance
value.
The
that
aware
fully
MTA is
development potential
and has
development options.
The
in the
property
potential,
has
enormous
expressed interest in pursuing
Real Estate Division of the MTA is
its own
of conducting
initial stages
development
the
a
formulating
assessment
credible
developer
designation and review process, and structuring an RFP.
resolve several
tasks must
first
hurdle
agreement by
no longer
is
a
needed and
These
major issues in the process.
The
Board,
and
determination
the MTA's
of
by
the
MTA
chief engineer, that this property is
serves no
useful purpose in connection
4
with the
maintenance and operation of the Boston Extension of
the turnpike.
issuance of
for the
The schedule
has not
yet been
largely upon the MTA's ability to
will depend
determined and
the RFP
orchestrate input and establish a review process acceptable to
all concerned parties.
Any development solution for the site,
highly competitive
become both
sale by the MTA, promises to
lease or
a land
either through
within the
and controversial
development and political communities, respectively.
development issues,
this thesis
plan,
and understanding
the analysis
Based upon
and planning
formulate a
attempts to
evaluate
market
opportunities,
development
conceptual
feasibility
economic
its
and
property,
of the
and
recommend
a
development strategy for Allston Landing.
Chapter
One
provides
development context
zoning.
an
that must
with development
of Allston
These
have
Chapter
also summarized.
strategies to
identifies planning
evolved
of
the
site,
which governs the MTA's development
essential issues
options and
overview
and the development rights under existing
The legislation
authority is
analytic
be resolved
Landing and
out-lines
in order
to proceed
Chapter Three
opportunities for
discussions
the
presents a range of
address each issue.
and market
from
Two
with
the
the
site.
community
5
and state
planning officials
leaders, city
agencies, and
a
preliminary market analysis.
Chapter Four
response to
further
Four
feasibility analysis
in the
evaluates a
and the
base case
including land
cost,
is presented as a
discussed in prior
describes
organize the program on site.
issues and
to
a
Allston
a
conceptual
to address the main planning
which attempts
development plan
of
development
and opportunities
the issues
Chapter
chapters.
for
development program
A preferred
Landing.
is used
options
outlines
The Phase I program
in Chapter
Five
which
sensitivity of key variables,
developer's
return
on
equity.
Chapter Six concludes with a summary of recommended components
in a development strategy for Allston Landing.
must recognize that this effort attempts to define
The reader
a preferred
which is
development program, conceptual plan and strategy
several years
in advance
of any
on-site activity.
The political and economic climates may change dramatically in
the next few years and the development issues will become more
clearly defined. The major decisions made during the course of
this effort are based upon the current understanding of issues
and opportunities and, in some instances, reflect the authors'
rational expectations about future conditions.
Much of
the information contained in the analysis section was
obtained through
interviews with
abutting
property
owners,
6
public officials, tenants and professional
community leaders,
Approximately 60 such interviews were conducted
consultants.
during the
made to
preparation of
contact the
key players.
along with
persons contacted,
contained in
Appendix A.
and availability,
this paper,
it was
representative views
A
and every attempt was
complete
their relative
listing
of
affiliation is
Given the practical limits of time
necessary in
certain cases to seek
from selected persons.
For this reason,
the authors do not contend the analysis to be exhaustive.
We wish
to extend our most sincere gratitude to all those who
gave of their time and energy in assisting in this effort.
7
CHAPTER ONE
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
an analytic overview of
to provide
is intended
This chapter
existing development parameters for Allston Landing.
Physical
property characteristics which may influence the site's development potential
concerns and
interests of
authority and
the
area and
of surplus
of
development
of the MTA with respect
property and
concludes by
This chapter
an overview
The
abutters.
legislative procedures
to development
cussed.
in the
recent activity
scribed by
site's context is de-
The
are summarized.
air rights
is
as-of-
the
summarizing
dis-
right development potential under existing zoning.
Property Characteristics
Site Definition:
Allston Landing is an approximate 40 acre parcel that has been
owned by
the
Massachusetts
20 separate
the MTA
and represents
(ConRail) rail
The site
only a
accommodate
yards from
is located
community of Allston.
since
1962
parcels via the eminent domain powers of
ed over
to
Authority
The Allston Landing assemblage includ-
(refer to exhibit II).
assembled
Turnpike
the
fragment of
relocation
the
of
total
Penn
land
Central
the site of the Prudential Center.
within the
city limits of Boston in the
8
9
will refer
This paper
relative
separate areas
to three
to
planning for the MTA property which are outlined in exhibit II
and defined as follows:
This includes approximately 49 acres
Planning District:
of land
defined
district is
public
by
of
rights
The
parcels.
and Sears
the MTA
inclusive of
way
and
a
distinct neighborhood boundary.
the
MTA
on
is the entire land area owned by
This
Allston Landing:
the
corner
northwest
the
of
The property
Street/Soldier's Field Road intersection.
measures approximately
imately 5
acres of
acres
39
ramp right
and
of way
Cambridge
includes
and 19
approxacres of
ConRail permanent easement.
Phase I:
owned by
The Phase I parcel is defined as the land area
the MTA
which
is
presently
unencumbered
by
outside property interests which would prohibit immediate
-development.
frontage
and
This constitutes
turnpike
ramp
the Soldier's Field Road
right
of
way
totaling
approximately 14 acres.
Boundaries:
The edges
by major
to the
property are clearly defined on three sides
public thoroughfares.
The
northern border is cre-
10
directly
Western Avenue,
ated by
Harvard
include a surface parking lot
Fronting uses
Business School.
the
from
across
and 5 level parking garage which services Soldiers Field Park,
a 475
unit, market
rate, married student housing project for
Harvard University.
owned and
the Metropolitan District Commission
maintained by
(MDC), establishes
Two at-grade ser-
boundary.
the eastern
on either
vice lanes
create a
four-lane limited access thoroughfare
Road, a
Soldiers Field
lanes combine
the through
side of
formidable pedestrian
barrier of
8
traffic
to
lanes
within a 150 foot right of way between Allston Landing and the
The MDC owns an approximate 0.5 acre parcel at
Charles River.
the Western Avenue/Soldier's Field Road inter-section.
The southern
is
of roadway
elevated
to
major segment of
an
allow
18-foot
the Turnpike ramps and ConRail tracks which are
clearance for
located within
is the
A
Windom Street.
Road and
Soldiers Field
this section
defined by Cambridge Street between
boundary is
the 40
acre parcel.
newly constructed
Beacon Companies,
Neighboring to the south
310 room Embassy Suite Hotel by The
Houghton Chemical
Co. plant and additional
ramps servicing the Turnpike.
property
is
The western
edge
to
the
comparison,
both
in
terms
of
its
Portions
of
Allston
neighboring uses.
quite
physical
irregular
boundary
Landing
extend
by
and
to
11
limit of
the eastern
right of way which generally defines
a public
Windom Street,
neighborhood in
a well defined and stable single family
at approximately
is developed
Housing in this neighborhood
North Allston.
10
units
per
Sears
acre.
Roebuck and Company owns and operates a regional warehouse and
repair facility
on 10 acres which borders the MTA property on
and single family residences along Windom Street.
three sides
Facilities for
radio and
television station WGBH are located
along Western Avenue, immediately west of the site.
Access:
the turnpike links the site directly into the major
Access to
highway network
Depending upon
trip via
traffic conditions,
the Turnpike
Financial District
only a
and 1-93 connects the core of Boston's
to Allston
Landing.
Headed west,
it is
and approximately 15 minutes to the Framingham and
Natick communities
Storrow Drive
and
to the
west.
Soldiers
Field
Road
and
provide direct and efficient access to the more
local destinations
in Boston,
efficient
Cambridge and
connections
and
residential,
commercial
unparalleled
opportunities with
sites.
an approximate ten minute
10 minute trip to Route 128, 25 minutes to interchange
with 1-495
timely
the Boston Metropolitan area.
which services
retail
to
Newton.
These
existing
major
markets
afford
other available development
12
Zoning:
Allston
Landing
industrial
is
zoning
facturing
at
an
currently
zoned
classifications;
allowable
FAR
within
M-1,
of
1.0
Industrial at an allowable FAR of 2.0.
were in
existence when
first 300
Road is
separate
Restricted
and
1-2,
ManuGeneral
These zoning districts
acquired the
property.
The
feet (approximate) of frontage along Soldiers Field
zoned M-1
adjoining Sears
uses as
the MTA
two
with the
tract zoned
defined by
balance of
1-2.
the Boston
the property and the
Allowable and conditional
Zoning
Code
are
listed
in
Appendix B.
Existing Uses/Easements:
As mentioned earlier, Allston Landing is presently used by the
MTA and
by the
ConRail for
truck and
the transport and warehousing of freight
rail industries.
Both operations are vital
to the efficient servicing of the Metropolitan Boston area and
collectively utilize
the full
extent of their available land
area.
The MTA
area for
makes use
tandem trailers
the turnpike.
occurs in
of the area within the ramps as a break-up
The
the paved
using the
make-up for
area which
Allston/Brighton exit of
the cabs and stored trailers
abuts Soldier's
Field Road.
The terminal at this location is operated by a tenant at will.
13
reuse of the site.
problem with
create a
does not
termination grace period and
30-60 day
contains a
The lease
However,
prior to any development which may occur in this Phase I area,
the MTA
Relocation costs,
activity.
site for
an alternate
must find
expected to be minimal.
over and
relocation of this
above land value, are
All on site service drives and rights
of way are owned by the MTA.
a perpetual easement interest in approximately 19
ConRail has
Allston Landing
acres of
as Allston
Upon
rail freight.
warehousing of
used
is
area
Yard, this
Referred to
(refer to exhibit II).
in
the
transfer
and
abandonment of this use,
the easement is dissolved and the property reverts to the MTA.
A rail
line extends
connect Allston
trailer vans
critical to
beneath the Cambridge Street overpass to
Yard with
unloading
the
at Beacon Park.
and
switching
of
The function of Allston Yard is
rail service in the Boston area and must maintain
some proximity and relation to the Beacon Park operations.
Aside from
the
ConRail
which encumber
utility easements
Landing.
western end
The MDC
of the
approximately 15
easement,
there
are
the development
South Charles
relief sewer
property in
a north-south
feet below
other
public
of Allston
traverses the
direction
at
grade. This can be paved over at
grade but cannot be covered with a building.
14
The MDC
also holds a 50 foot wide subsurface easement for its
deep water
350 foot
and does
northeasterly direction
to be
there were
extensive blasting
in a
any significant
not create
The MDC
development.
constraint on
the site
This traverses
supply.
concerned
would be
if
driving in the
or pile
immediate vicinity of the easement.
ramps.
the site
corner of
The southeastern
The inclusion
of this
contains
area within
the
Phase I
turnpike
permits
either the creative use of air rights above the ramps or their
indicated an
efficient ramping system.
a more
relocation for
improving this
interest in
The MTA has
alignment
and
the
conditions at the Cambridge Street/Soldiers
congested traffic
Field Road intersection.
Environmental Issues:
The immediate roadway system surrounding the site is
Traffic:
presently inadequate
to accommodate
significant
additional traffic destined for Allston Landing.
funnel
through
the
Cambridge
Street/Soldiers
amounts
of
Traffic must
Field
Road
intersection, weave two lanes to the left within a distance of
only 100 feet to make a left hand turn, and proceed to Western
Avenue to
enter the
Street intersection
This access
system of
site.
The congestion
a Level of Service D.
presently measures
problem, along
local streets
with the
at the Cambridge
fact that
is approaching
the existing
capacity at critical
15
require significant alterations to the overall
stations, will
Any
traffic network.
significant program
proposed for
the
site must include improved turnpike ramp access.
A related environmental traffic concern is the amount of truck
services the MTA, ConRail and Sears operations.
traffic which
Trucks which may service these or other industrial uses in the
immediate
area
be
must
reconfigured
to
prohibit
routing
through neighboring residential streets.
Numerous
Utilities:
water, natural
lines.
utilities border
sewer/storm,
gas,
the site:
domestic
and
telephone
electrical
The only utilities crossing the site are a 4" gas line
extending
way
right of
along the
traveling east-west
from
Rotterdam Street and the utility easements mentioned above.
Based upon
and the
struction documents
various utility
that there
with the
review authorities, it appears
significant utility
the Allston
Suites Hotel con-
project correspondence
companies and
are no
development at
the Embassy
review of
a brief
constraints on future
Landing site.
The only possible
exception is the need for further improvements to the existing
combined sewer/storm
the resolution
piping.
of an
system in
the vicinity
of the site and
outfall location for the future on-site
16
In
Subsurface Conditions:
Inc.
the fall of 1983 Haley & Aldrich,
(H & A) performed extensive subsurface investigations and
Hotel.
site of
at the
geotechnical studies
reports
these
of
significant conclusions
The most
Embassy Suites
the new
relevant to the Allston Landing site are the following:
- Based
(1) Groundwater
upon a
survey
three month
of
eight observation wells, the stabilized groundwater table
BCB,
from
is
which
relatively constant
of Elevation 6.9'-10.9'
below
0.9'
to
the
above
4.3'
Charles River at Elevation
level of
A maximum groundwater level at Elev. 11.5' was
7.6' BCB.
recommended by
site.
the range
be within
appears to
H &
at the hotel
design purposes
A for
This is approximately six feet below the majority
grades at
of existing
dewatering and
the Allston
waterproofing will
Landing site.
Thus,
for
be required
the
structured parking, elevator pits, gas and oil separating
tank and
This does not
construction.
other below-grade
impose a significant cost premium on the project.
(2) Soils
and Foundation
Engineering Department
have been
taken
Landing site.
within
records revealed
the
boundary
of the
MTA
that no borings
of
the
Allston
and organic deposits in the uppermost
inadequate for the use of shallow footings to
support medium-rise
driven down
brief review
The H & A reports indicated that existing
miscellaneous fill
strata are
- A
to the
buildings.
Piles
must
be
driven
level of the underlying outwash sand
17
Temporary
bedrock.
the
overlay
which
deposits
surcharging of the existing fill will be necessary.
do not
subsurface conditions
that
indicate
findings
these
In conclusion,
any
impose
existing
the
risks
special
or
excessive construction premiums for new development.
There is
Topographic:
Based
planning district.
upon the
relief to
vertical
the entire
of
datum
the
of 17
an elevation
property averages
Base, the
Boston City
no topographic
feet.
views, both
Views: The
one of
scale
the site's
will
have
immediate
along the
and Memorial
Drive.
upon
exiting
the
main arterials of Soldiers Field Road
This view
and creation
development identity
the Harvard
recognition
Development of any
presently consists
of ware-
parked trailers, yet there is an opportunity for a
strong address
above the
assets.
most valuable
turnpike and
houses and
to and from Allston Landing, comprise
of a
for Allston.
second floor
much needed
The
capture vistas
Business School
high
views from
quality
the site
of the Charles River,
campus and Harvard Square to the
north, and the Back Bay and Boston Skyline to the south.
immediate views
lie to the east.
More
of the Charles River, Esplanade and Cambridge
18
Noise:
and pace
traffic volumes
The heavy
undesirable
of traffic flow
levels
noise
along Soldiers
Field Road
create
while standing
at grade.
Even greater noise levels are gen-
erated by
traffic on
the turnpike ramps as traffic is accel-
erating on the access ramp.
Development Context
Recent Developments:
corner of
by The
a 310 suite hotel on the southwest
Suites Hotel,
The Embassy
Cambridge Street
and Soldiers Field Road, is owned
scheduled to open this fall.
and is
Beacon Companies
development activity
This recent
Allston community
that
has stirred
development
of
concern in the
Allston
Landing
is
imminent.
The
stoutly
square feet
design and
versial.
building
proportioned
reaching to
a maximum
material selection
Design criticisms
proportions, monotonous
boxy fenestrations,
contains
height of
160,000
180 feet.
gross
The
for the hotel has been controinclude the hotel's poor overall
facade treatment of bland masonry and
randomly aligned
pitched roofs
and
its
"shoe-horned" site accommodation.
The Allston community appears to be mostly concerned about the
"cold shoulder"
that the tower turns toward the community and
19
west.
to the
immediate neighbor
hotel's
As a
result, the
western
unattractive and
is particularly
building facade
the
Co.,
Chemical
Houghton
screen the
Boston and
Cambridge and downtown
Charles River,
of the
maximize views
building attempts to
The
traffic congestion.
the increased
This controversial
disassociation with the Allston community.
heightened community
design, has
suggests a
sensitivities
emotions and
toward any new development at Allston Landing.
Although the
development of
setbacks, were
The
did
require
not
a
and
building height
not major issues of contention in the process.
of
focus
such as
These variances,
BRA.
hotel
variances were sought by Beacon and granted
rezoning, several
by the
the
nearly
transportation issue
everyone's
attention
of
in excess
which took
on
was
one
the
year
to
resolve.
fear relative
major community
The other
opment will
not be
this year.
operation later
attempting to
confirmed until
The
hotel
increased
is
in
traffic
Cambridge Street/Soldiers
negotiate the
road intersection
the
to the hotel devel-
may exacerbate
full
volumes
Field
the intersection's existing
congestion.
In 1984,
the MTA
amounted to
ary to
and Con
Rail carried out a land swap which
a reconfiguration
that illustrated
of the ConRail easement bound-
in exhibit II.
The swap, instigated
20
by the
three
approximately
MTA, exchanged
acres
of
prior
within the current Phase I boundary, with an
ConRail easement
approximately equivalent land area along Western Avenue.
This
to create a contiguous land area of reasonable
was instituted
proportion to accommodate an initial phase of development.
The MTA made public its intention to investigate the potential
this site and initiated the pre-RFP process in
development of
the fall
In
1984.
of
of
December
that
year,
Chairman
Driscoll, at the request of the community, called a meeting to
preliminary thoughts of the MTA and dispel rumors
outline the
of a
the
"wired" developer designation process.
participation
via
representatives in
review if
a
community
community
formulation of an RFP and design
No
task force
Chairman Driscoll
date, although
extensive
including
force
task
both the
it proceeded.
be
would
there
that
community
Driscoll assured
has been
has announced
formed to
that another
informational meeting will be held in September.
Abutters:
The following
expressed by
discussion provides
a summary
of the concerns
the abutters to Allston Landing regarding future
development of the site.
Harvard Business
has presently
School:
engaged Moshe
The Harvard
Safdie
&
Business School (HBS)
Associates,
Inc.
to
21
master
and
re-examination
the
assist in
which is presently used as a surface parking
Avenue frontage,
has
The HBS
considered
institutional
for
area
options
two
basically
(1) continue to
Avenue:
toward Western
regarding expansion
frontage as a "back door" with parking and service
treat this
entrance to
by
contingent upon
a major
boundary to
HBS
image
Western
the HBS
but
planners
upgrade
landscaping and
including generous
Allston Landing.
the
a
around
Western Avenue.
campus from
the HBS
preferred
is
expansion
organize
(2)
functions, or
option
most likely
considered the
expansion.
the
The Western
Harvard Business School's campus and real estate.
lot, is
of
planning
of
major
new
The second
is
Western
highly
Avenue,
compatible development at
Avenue is regarded as an important
campus and
there is no desire to expand
beyond this edge.
The main
concerns of the HBS regarding development at Allston
Landing include the following:
1)
The Western
Avenue image
environmentally compatible
to possibly
should
be
visually
and
with the long range HBS plans
create a new heavily landscaped entrance off
of Western Avenue.
2)
Traffic conditions at the perimeter of the HBS should
not be significantly worsened with new development.
3)
The HBS
must maintain
and preserve
the
autonomy of the existing campus environment.
desirable
22
should
Landing
Allston
of
edge
The northern
4)
be
complementary in scale and use with the HBS campus.
The Harvard Real Estate (HRE) is the fee
Harvard Real Estate:
Soldiers Field Park housing and garage at the corner
owner of
of Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road.
housing or
expanding the
interest in
HRE has no current
and
garage facilities
shares the concerns of the HBS outlined above.
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC):
Landing and
between Allston
the
Charles
expressed the
River.
The
need for
an
Cambridge
between
development of
building massing
setbacks and
and
along Soldiers
MDC's
planning
improved
Western
open
Avenue.
boardwalk or
a waterside
frontage across
the Allston Landing site.
a 100
foot building
The
the
Western
MDC's primary
Allston Landing
accomplished by
to see
of
southwest
Road intersection.
Avenue/Soldiers Field
concerns regarding
the Charles River, including the
parcel
acre
0.5
approximate
The MDC owns the land
relate to
Field Road and
has
department
space
This
connection
could
public open
be
space
The MDC would like
setback from Soldiers Field Road
and a building form which steps in height away from the water.
The Beacon
Companies:
Beacon is
the developer and owner of
the Embassy Suites Hotel which is scheduled to open this fall.
Beacon is
Landing as
not only
interested in
the development of Allston
an abutter, but has internally considered pursuing
23
Any quality development
for the site.
the role
of developer
which is
complementary to
encouraged as
would be
the hotel
enhance-ment to the hotel's location.
Beacon's primary concern is traffic engineering and management
services
network which
existing roadway
of the
hotel.
the
Given the existing traffic congestion which exists at critical
would
which
Landing
Allston
at
development
have difficulty supporting any
Beacon would
pressure points,
generate
a
significant level of traffic without a substantial improvement
system.
traffic circulation
to the
likely would
ramp relocation and upgrading of the Western
include turnpike
Cambridge Street intersections with Soldiers Field
Avenue and
Beacon is
Road.
This most
between the
Cambridge Street
Soldiers Field
widening a
triangular
shaped
portion
of
merging turnpike exit ramps and
Road. This is to mitigate the current crowding
of three
traffic lanes
roadway.
A secondary
into a
two and
one-half lane
width
interest is improved pedestrian access
to the hotel from Allston Landing and Cambridge.
Houghton Chemical
Corp.
is
Corporation
a family-owned
and
(HCC):
The
managed
-chemical distribution
Houghton Chemical
business located immediately west of the Embassy Suites Hotel.
occurs on-site since the primary function of
No manufacturing
is distribution
the business
northeast U.S.
since
the
markets.
early
60's
of
organic
The business
and
no
solvents
for
the
has been in operation
relocation
is
planned
or
24
Beacon
desirable.
was
unsuccessful
in
HCC's
negotiating
relocation for additional surface parking for the hotel.
HCC's main
traffic congestion
trucks and
The existing
off-site concern is traffic related.
complicates access
automobiles.
site for
to the
both
The company participated with Beacon
widening of the turnpike off-ramp to improve access to
in the
Soldiers Field Road and would likely oppose any development at
which did
Allston Landing
not successfully
traffic
resolve
impacts.
Sears Roebuck
and
The
Co.:
Sears
warehouse
and
repair
facility west of Allston Landing pre-dates the construction of
the Massachusetts turnpike in Allston.
10 acres
of land,
capable of
space, Sears
at a
Sited on approximately
the current facility of 280,000 gsf is not
expansion.
With increased volumes and demand for
has been forced to rent an additional 80,000 gsf
nearby location.
This
facility is
vital to their New
England operations and benefits greatly from its direct access
into the interstate highway network.
Sears Roebuck and Company is currently evaluating its national
distribution network.
distribution may
The
require numerous
frequency, mini-warehouses
large inventory
most efficient
warehouses
strategically placed, high
in contrast
such
system for future
as
to the
the
high
Allston
volume,
facility.
Pending a restructuring of the distribution network, the Sears
25
warehouse in Allston may become obsolete.
At present however,
the facility at capacity and is unaware of any
Sears operates
alternate sites
which would be more ideally located for their
needs.
Due to the high volumes of trucking activity involved in their
operations, Sears'
access to
the main
seek
a
primary concern
efficient
is maintaining
In order to bypass congestion on
their warehouse.
arteries, some truck traffic is presently enticed to
path
of
resistance
lesser
through
adjoining
the
neighborhood streets.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority -
In order
to
fully
understand
the
Powers & Procedures
as-of-right
development
potential for Allston Landing, it is necessary to evaluate the
development powers and land use control procedures of the MTA.
The MTA
was created by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts via
enabling
Chapter 354
legislation,
as
of the
amended,
Acts of
along
1952.
with
the
This
1962
Supplemental Trust Agreement govern the MTA's rights regarding
use of the Allston Landing site.
documents are discussed below.
Enabling Legislation:
Relevant excerpts from these
26
The enabling
act created
board bureau
department, commission,
any
works or
or agency
...
other
The
".
of three members appointed by the governor
Authority consists
consent of the council.
from and
with advice
of public
the department
regulation of
and
supervision
the
to
subject
"not
instrumentality" and
independent "public
as an
the MTA
Each member is
appointed for an 8 year term and one is designated Chairman.
Section 5 of the enabling act grants the general powers of the
MTA.
It authorizes
the MTA "to acquire, hold and dispose of
determination by
property "is
a majority
of surplus
condition that
serves
may grant
land or
the lease
disposition
vote of
the maintenance
The MTA
Extension."
the
and
not needed
connection with
the use
in
requirement
The initial
process
is
a
the Board that the real
no
useful
and operation
purpose
in
of the Boston
easements or concessions for
grant air
or grant
efficient operation of the turnpike.
rights subject to the
will
not
prejudice
the
The consulting engineers
MTA, Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff, must approve
for the
of the
its powers."
exercise of
in the
personal property
real and
determination by the Board prior to formal declaration
of surplus.
Once real
property is
subsection 1-5
If the
town, or
declared surplus, Chapter 81 Appendix,
(q) stipulates
property is
the procedure for disposition.
not being sold to the commonwealth, city,
other public
instrumentality, or
has a fair market
27
excess of
value in
Pursuant to
required.
in the
a
public
bid
process
is
the advertisement procedures outlined
act, the award of real property interest is granted to
the "highest
on the
$5,000, then
responsible bidder".
In the decision of Village
Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (1964),
the court
decided that
zoning provisions,
although the MTA is exempt from local
this does
not exempt a current owner from
local zoning provisions on land once owned by the MTA that was
declared excess and transferred by the MTA.
Section 7
enumerates the "Incidental Powers" of the MTA which
grants that:
"the Authority may sell the buildings or other structure
upon any lands taken by it, or may remove the same, and
shall sell, if a sale is practicable, any lands or rights
or interest in lands on other property taken or purchased
for the purposes of this act, whenever the same shall, in
the opinion of the Authority, cease to be needed for such
purpose."
and,
"contract with any person, partnership, association, or
the use of any part thereof,
corporation desiring
including the right of way adjoining the paved portion,
-for placing thereon telephone, telegraph, electric light
or power lines, gas stations, garages and restaurants, or
for any other purpose, and to fix the terms, conditions,
rents and rates of charges for such use;".
Chapter
81,
Appendix
eminent domain
the turnpike
subsection
powers in
relative to
1-7
clarifies
the
MTA's
any reconstruction
or additions to
public utilities.
It
power to take via eminent domain
grants
the
28
"such land abutting the turnpike as it may deem necessary
or desirable for the purposes of removing or relocating
all or any part of the facilities of any public utility,
including rail lines, and may thereafter lease the same
or convey an easement or any other interest therein to
such utility company upon such terms as it, in its sole
discretion may determine."
This power has particular relevance to the ConRail activity at
Allston Landing.
eminent domain
relocation of
taking may
The
MTA has
the
property abutting
this activity.
be exercised
authority
its right
It
to
take
via
for
the
of way
is conceivable that such a
in any realignment or reconstruction
of the existing ramps at Allston/Brighton.
Chapter 81,
Appendix subsection
MTA's "Utilization
make leases
owned or
use of
of Air
not to
held by
opinion of
Rights."
exceed 99
the MTA.
such air
1-15A of the MGL governs the
The MTA is
authorized to
years for air rights over land
There are no restrictions on the
rights except the conditions that it, in the
the MTA,
"will not
impair the construction, full
use, safety, maintenance, repair, operation or revenues of the
Massachusetts Turnpike,"
and that
any lease
in excess of 40
years is subject to approval by the governor.
This act
also confers
territorial limits
provisions of
subject to
any
ordinance, rule
that
of the
the State
building,
or
air
rights
City of
Boston is
building code,
fire,
regulation
leased
"but
garage,
applicable
within
subject to the
shall
health
in
the
the
or
not
be
zoning
city
of
29
The act further states that the MTA shall not lease
Boston."
in the
the MTA,
Boston, unless
city of
"after consultation
with the mayor", finds that the new development "will preserve
community."
of the
the amenities
and increase
Developments
constructed on leased air rights are taxed to the lessee as if
owned the land in fee with no part of the value of
the lessee
the land included in the tax assessment.
This
Excess Land."
"Utilization of
leases with
grant land
1-15B of the MGL governs the
Appendix subsection
Chapter 81,
similar parameters
The
air rights.
utilization of
authorizes the
as
single major
MTA
outlined
to
for
difference is
that under such a land lease, any development shall be subject
to "building,
fire,
applicable in
the city
thing is
located."
lease, this
Code as
and
zoning laws,
or town
where such building or other
compliance with
would require
to the
by-laws
At Allston Landing, via a sale or ground
administered by the BRA.
are taxed
ordinances or
lessee as
the Boston Zoning
Developments on land leases
if the
lessee owned the land in
fee, with no part of the value of the land included in the tax
assessment.
Trust Agreement:
A Supplemental Trust Agreement was executed in January of 1962
(1962 Agreement)
National Bank
between the
of Boston,
MTA and it's Trustee, the First
for the construction of the "Boston
30
This provided
Extension".
for the extension of the turnpike
from Route 128 into downtown Boston.
Section 404 of the 1962 Trust Agreement identifies
Article 4,
the
creation
of
"Improvement
an
and
Account"
payment
procedures for improvements deemed appropriate as necessary by
The 1962 Agreement further defines "improvements" to
the MTA.
"...embrace and shall be limited to any additional
traffic lanes, truck and bus terminals, gasoline, service
and repair stations, restaurants, parking facilities,
additional interchanges or ramps to facilitate the flow
of traffic and enlargements thereof, including in each
case entrances, exits, acceleration and deceleration
extensions thereof,
and toll collection
lanes and
facilities."
can be
These improvements
of need by the MTA Board.
the ramps
flow to
made by the MTA upon determination
If any modification or expansion of
at Allston/Brighton
and from
would facilitate
the turnpike,
the
traffic
the MTA could undertake this
improvement within its legislative powers.
Disposition Terms:
In
addition
agreements
reviewed to
to
the
between
legislation,
the
determine a
Allston Landing.
and
likely sale
private
of
the
developers
or lease
recent
were
structure for
The MTA clearly prefers to execute long term
leases on the property.
ground or
MTA
several
air, have
The term of recent comparable leases,
been 99 years.
The annual lease payment
31
is not variable with the project's cash flow, but is typically
the interest
generated by
held in escrow by the MTA escrow agent.
(treasury bond)
form of
at the
risk exposure
the least
payment offers
The developer
on a long-term government security
This
to the MTA.
however is required to purchase a treasury bond
outset of
which provides an annual yield
the project
equivalent to the market ground rent negotiated with the MTA.
most likely
It appears
that the
MTA will
seek to arrange a
in the form mentioned above.
lease agreement
Given the scale
of Allston
Landing and the potential long term build -out, it
also seems
reasonable that the MTA would permit the developer
to take
down
the
contingent upon
property
on
a
pre-negotiated
schedule,
the MTA's ability to deliver the land and the
developer's phasing projections.
Summary:
The liberal wording of the enabling act creates no legislative
limit to
the eventual
contracting
with
an
political limitations
these powers
appear
use of
property owned by the MTA when
outside
developer
or
The
agency.
of reasonable and practical exercise of
to
be
the
primary
restraint
on
the
development powers of the MTA.
The MTA
has two paramount objectives when reviewing the reuse
or alteration to any of its holdings.
Any improvements or new
32
developments must:
measure diminish
(1)
enhance,
the safe
Massachusetts Turnpike
jeopardize, the
and
possible,
efficient
and (2)
repayment of
if
but
operation
in
of
no
the
facilitate, and in no measure
bonds issued
by the MTA to its
shareholders.
Mention should
be made
landowner
significant
of
acquisition of
the early
of the
the right
proportions
of way
sixties through
battle waged
perception of
as
Allston.
a
The
for the Boston Extension in
the Allston community was a bitter
between local community interests and an all too
powerful creature of the Commonwealth.
through
in
the MTA
Allston
bisected
North
The Turnpike alignment
Allston
from
Allston/Brighton community.
This
severance by
remains
many
long
in
the
residents as
minds
of
the
greater
the turnpike
established
Allston
an open wound in their neighborhood fabric.
recognition
of
this
between the
MTA
and
establishing a
continuing
Allston
adversative
community
is
The
relationship
fundamental
in
politically plausible development strategy for
Allston Landing.
Development Potential As-of-Right
The as-of-right development for Allston Landing is governed by
the MTA's enabling legislation, in the case of improvements by
the MTA.
In
the event that the land is declared surplus and
33
an outside party, the Boston Zoning Code governs
developed by
the development as administered by the BRA.
interpretation of
A literal
classification generates
overall 1.9
to an
Table I
FAR.
area within
density by
classifications are
of maximum allowable
The breakdown
the planning
upon zoning
potential
restraints
defined in
zoning
respective
The
Appendix B.
Table I
figures in
computations based
district is
with the
identified in
allowable "as-of-right"
density
of 4 million gross square
in excess
Permitted uses
below.
zoning
industrial
Landing planning district. This equates
the Allston
feet for
the existing
are
allowance and
resulting
maximum
theoretical
do not reflect
from
traffic
con-
ditions, open space and parking requirements.
TABLE I
Allowable Density via Existing Zoning
Owner
Land Area
(acres)
Zoning
Allowable
Sq.
Feet
FAR
MTA
-ConRail
19.26
I
2
1,678,000
Phase I
6.75
7.20
I
M
2
1
588,000
313,600
Other
5.64
I
2
491,400
Subtotal
Sears
Residential
Total
FAR
3,071,000
38.85
9.75
1.40
50.00
1.86
2
I
I
2
849,500
122,000
4,042,500
34
The development of close to 4 million gross square feet within
the planning
district could obviously not be supported by the
existing roadway
icantly if
system.
Congestion would
increase signif-
some of the existing industrial and warehouse uses
are replaced by office use, which has close to three times the
number of employees per square foot of space.
Development Schedule
There is
Landing by
no proposed
the MTA.
schedule
for
development
of
Allston
The following list of events and approx-
imate time frames attempts to forecast an approximate date for
occupancy of the first building.
Time (yrs.)
1. Prepare RFP with community and state input:
1.0-1.5
2. Proposal preparation by developers:
0.5
3. Proposal review and developer designation:
0.5-1.0
4. Public approvals and permits:
1.0-2.0+
5. Financing commitments:
0.5+
6. Phase I construction documents:
1.0
7. Site preparation (off site improvements):
0.0-1.0
8. Construction
1.5-2.0
Total:
6.0-9.5 yrs.
35
Adjusting for
the fact
simultaneously, it
would project
of the
that some
occur
the most optimistic scenario
appears that
to occur in 5 years, or
phase I
occupancy for
can
events
the year 1990.
Summary
The physical
of
characteristics
significant constraints
create no
potential.
Allston
the
on its
Landing
site
future development
The primary constraints on development are related
to three basic issues.
1).
The
roadway
network
and
traffic
conditions
must
be
significantly improved to provide safe and efficient access to
Allston Landing, the turnpike, and surrounding community.
2).
Any
address
new development
the
physical
Allston community.
design objectives
at Allston
and
Landing
functional
must
carefully
relationship
to
the
The development must respond to the urban
and desired
mix of uses in order to obtain
political acceptance and approvals.
3).
for
Site
control of the Sears and ConRail parcels is critical
Allston
potential.
Landing
to
achieve
its
highest
development
36
CHAPTER TWO
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Chapter Two discusses the three critical development issues as
determined by
dations are
the analysis in Chapter One.
parcels
is
control of
Site
relations issues.
discussed
traffic and
resolve the
presented to
the
with
along
General recommen-
Sears
available
community
ConRail
and
options
and
strategies.
Traffic
Allston Landing is effectively an island surrounded by heavily
used traffic
routes which
operate at
regional and
local travel
of trucks
immediate access
the Cambridge
Street/Soldiers Field
intersections in
proposal
for
the
In addition,
bears
10
worst
the top
making it a priority for correcAny
state administration.
site
There is no
Road intersection
ranking among
the state,
by the
tive action
and autos.
to the site from the turnpike.
distinction of
the dubious
full capacity for both
must
recognize
and
development
remedy
these
conditions.
Vanasse/Hangen Associates,
traffic engineering consultants to
Suites Hotel, recently
The Beacon
Companies for
the Embassy
prepared a
memorandum on
traffic conditions
at the turnpike
37
off ramp.
"...equates to
period
as
for
manual
are required
MDC police
difficult that
since it
morning peak
cited the
It
a Level
the original
icantly below
C/D
of Service
evening operates near Level of Service D."
design level
being
so
control
while
the
This ranks signifand is
regarded as
substandard.
describes the most critical daily period after
The memorandum
the Embassy Suites Hotel to be the morning peak
completion of
hour when
a
expected to
Road.
projected
94
occur from
additional
right
Cambridge Street
turns
can
be
onto Soldiers Field
When added to existing right turn movements, this would
create a Level of Service D.
The
evening
peak
hour
inconsequential change"
Level of
Service D.
network related
of the
is
over existing
Proposed
as
an
"almost
conditions approaching
improvements to
the existing
to the hotel development consists of widening
exit ramp
area
by
westerly property limit.
existing congestion
approximately
ten
feet
at
the
This improvement should relieve some
and provide
There will
be access
only via
only
Cambridge
Street
onto
projected
improved access to the site.
Soldiers Field
in
order
to
Road and exit
avoid
increased
congestion.
The extensive
perimeter of
future development
the site and the magnitude of its
creates an
opportunity to reconstruct the
38
roadway network,
support
incremental
the
generated
traffic
the
by
new
depend in part upon the availability
This will
development.
conditions and
existing traffic
to improve
of highway/ infrastructure
funding.
Options:
The following
could
alternative strategies
employed
be
in
dealing with the existing traffic:
Leave
1)
ramps
all
intersections
and
as
is
and
'downzone' the site accordingly;
(e.g. additional
in
etc.)
the stressed network
improvements to
Provide minor
2)
turning
an effort
lanes,
signalization,
modify
to mitigate incremental increases in
traffic; or
3)
changes to
Provide major
relocated ramps,
the network which include
and
widened roadways
inter-
improved
sections on both sides of the river.
The existing
periods which
network is
would constrain
improvements have
capacity of
aids to
already over
been constructed
the streets.
stop the
new
These
bleeding, but
capacity
development.
during
peak
Incremental
over time to increase the
improvements serve
do not
as band
remedy the long term
39
site and
protect the
The costs
order to
project, a
State and
that the
protect the
MTA has
extensive.
would be
option 3
community.
of the
In
formula between the developer, City,
It is important to note
be considered.
not participated in cost sharing for infra-
air rights
Office Park).
the Allston Landing
developer's economic feasibility of the
cost sharing
MTA should
use of
long-term interests
associated with
structure improvements
ground or
and best
the highest
can assure
be the only alternative which
appears to
Option 3
problem.
in any
of its
recent dispositions of
(Copley
Place,
Wang
Westfield
importance
regional
given the
However,
Labs,
and
severity of this situation, it may be possible to have the MTA
cost sharing
participate in
compensation by
with subsequent
the developer through a supplement to the ground lease.
Community Interests
As stated
by
various
community development
it is
imperative that
ongoing component
Landing site.
residents,
neighborhood
leaders
and
staff during recent community meetings,
community participation
of the
be
a
vital,
development process for the Allston
The wound created by the schism of the Allston-
Brighton neighborhood
by
the
land
taking
for
the
Boston
Extension of the turnpike has not been forgotten over the past
23 years.
This
imminent site development process offers the
challenging potential
of rallying and re-unifying many of the
40
various splinter
groups behind
a well thought out program of
community amenities to be included in the new development.
Interests:
In 1975 the debate over the location of Kennedy Library in the
vicinity of
the North
Harvard Square
stirred sufficient interest among
Allston community and Harvard University to jointly
undertake a
land use
The purpose
of the process was to identify future development
prospects for
for Allston
Landing.
the site which were consistent with both market
opportunities and
effort was
planning process
abutters' concerns.
published by
the North
The product from this
Allston/Harvard Land
Use
Task Force in a report entitled Allston Landing.
Although the
tatives on
as the
report is
the Task
somewhat dated
Force may not be of identical persuasion
current community
preferred program
the probable
now and the represen-
leaders, the
alternatives provide
interests and
community
future development
and
a useful insight into
positions that
will
development of this site becomes more imminent.
goals for
goals
were enumerated
surface
as
Six community
in the
report
which can be summarized as follows:
1)
New
development
neighbors and
neighborhood;
enhance
should
the
complement
character
of
the
existing
the
existing
41
2)
New development
neighborhood streets
should alleviate truck traffic from
directly from the turn-
and access
pike if possible;
3)
mix of
A complete
housing types should be provided
(the
constraints
within economic
Allston
Civic
Asso-
of
river
ciation desired elderly housing);
5)
Public open
take advantage
space should
provide recreational
frontage and
areas for new and old
communities;
plan
Any
6)
must
implementation
of
capable
be
predominantly by the private sector.
The report further identified market opportunities for office,
residential
retail
and
provided by Gladstone Associates.
different from
is dramatically
forecasts and
market data
projections were
is no
through
sectors
research
market
Given that the market today
its
condition
extended only
longer appropriate.
What
1975
and
1985,
the
in
to
is
still
of
valuable insight, however, is the preferred program of uses by
the Allston Civic Association (ACA) and Harvard University.
The Task
Force rejected
industrial expansion
and undesirable
tively.
on the
elderly and
luxury condominiums,
regional shopping center and
basis of adverse traffic impacts
perpetuation of
Acceptable uses
ranging from
both a
incompatible
uses,
respec-
included a mix of residential units
low-moderate income
apartments
to
a mix of regional and local professional
42
local shopping center and both recrea-
a small
office space,
tional and riverfront open space.
The
these
advanced
Force
Task
Allston/Harvard
North
development goals
and acceptable
market opportunities into a
preferred program
and conceptual
land use
Landing.
plan for
The Sears facility was not considered as integral to
the ConRail
easement and operation
any new
development, and
was not
recognized as a development constraint.
ual plan
Allston
contains
addressing the
omissions
strategic
significant
The conceptby
not
integration of these existing uses
phasing or
and, from our viewpoint is neither practical nor viable.
The attempt
in 1975 to translate prescribed goals and program
into a conceptual plan gave birth to some general planning and
design criteria
which illustrated
solution to the Task Force.
Reducing
1)
development
an acceptable
These criteria included:
traffic
truck
through
community
and
arresting the sprawl of light industry;
2)
Establishing a new residential image for the area;
Western
Transforming
3)
industrial image
shops
and
into a
offices
on
Avenue
from
its
currently
community street
with housing,
side
complementing
the
south
academic development on the north side;
4)
5)
Providing a range of housing opportunities;
Connecting the
existing Allston
Charles River via public open space;
community
to
the
43
Creating a riverfront park along Soldiers Field Road
6)
Maintaining a
7)
low-medium building
scale along
the
of the Soldiers Field Park housing
river, representative
complex;
Positioning taller structures at appropriate setbacks
8)
from the river.
Although the Allston Landing report was prepared ten years ago
fundamentally different
within a
conditions,
and market
set of
the
remains
it
and
market preferences
criteria
comprehensive
most
to date,
community interests
articulation of
political, economic
summarized
and the goals,
must
above
be
factored into any development proposal.
Community Participation:
last fifteen
In the
development stance,
This did
From the
to a
participation in Boston
shift from a confrontational, anti-
a dramatic
has undergone
one.
years community
more cooperative,
not occur
by chance
product oriented
or without
difficulty.
resistance to the Park Plaza proposal of 1971, which
resulted in
100% successful
product oriented
Citizens Review
written development
during 1977-80,
Committees, there
obstruction, to
guidelines to
Committee
the Copley
the
successful
(CRC)
Place
providing
project
to the recent BRA sponsored Citizens Advisory
has been
a healthy
transition from a win-
lose style of negotiation to a win-win style.
44
Some of
major public sector players who were active
the same
John
in the Copley Place project are still influential today:
Office
of
Governor Dukakis;
MTA chairman;
Driscoll, the
The new
Transportation.
for larger
city, especially
can compensate
for
BRA
Mayor and
today for
favorable climate
Salvucci,
Fred
Planning;
State
real estate
which
Keefe,
of
Secretary
Director
create
a
the
development in
which inherently
scale projects
things
those
Frank
Proposition
2
1/2
inhibits the city budget from providing.
Within Allston
there is currently no apparent umbrella organ-
ization or elected representative which has taken a leadership
role with respect to Allston Landing.
many civic organizations and
to the
organizational structure
There is an ill-defined
associations (Community Development Corporation - CDC, Allston
Civic Association
tion -
- ACA,
South Allston Neighborhood AssociaAllston-Brighton CDC
The
SANA, etc.).
professional planning
has provided
assist in the implementation
skills to
of community objectives, such as commercial revitalization and
community housing,
The ACA
been
has historically
issues but
agenda.
is not
but it
political force.
a strong
effective
in
leading
major
has yet to put Allston Landing at the top of their
In addition,
councillors representing
position towards
the
mayor,
BRA
director,
and
city
Allston have refrained from taking a
the development
of this site.
This leader-
45
will be filled by the group or representative who
ship vacuum
manages to most forcefully express the major issues.
issues should
sion in
Allston Landing.
be at
to what
the
critical
Aside from the discus-
Landing report, four generic issues have
the Allston
emerged from
firm consensus
is no
Presently there
community
recent
These
discussions.
include;
traffic (local and highway), public open space, density (bulk,
and height),
mixed use
community participation
The
and housing.
mission
of
the
process will be to expand and articu-
late the issues to the lead agency.
Interest in
by the
the future of Allston Landing has been stimulated
recent actions of the MTA.
a panel
station conducted
which
was
attended
The CDC
representatives.
Inc.,
community
community
recently hired
planners,
to
assist
planning strategies for the community.
the MTA
tember by
the subject in June
discussion on
several
by
The local cable television
Chairman is
in
and
leaders
Stockard &
some
Engler
preliminary
A meeting set for Sep-
likely to intensify community
interest.
The Copley
its modus
to
all
Place model
It began with a totally open invitation
operandi.
concerned
parties,
concerned individuals.
cipants' attention
is an appropriate paradigm because of
whether
designated
leaders
or
It proceeded to concentrate the parti-
on the definition of issues, not approval/
46
specific
of
disapproval
process
guidelines which were
general development
set of
produced a
This
features.
design
submitted to
the MTA and developer for comment and subsequent
inclusion in
their lease
This established credi-
agreement.
the community concerns since they were then vested
bility for
with both legitimate political and legal power.
On December
1978 in the waning moments of his first term,
22,
Governor Dukakis
between the
proclaimed the
MTA and
Copley Place lease agreement
the private developer, UIDC, "a national
model for successful citizen participation in the planning and
design of
large scale
beyond any
doubt that
a way
occur in
developer and
Massachusetts enjoying
reason
(It)
grand scale can
on a
not
the needs
should prove
only
of
but of its neighbors as well."
nationally prominent
the
With
economic success
unemployment rate among the top 10 industrialized
(the lowest
states and
economic growth
that satisfies
the city,
...
urban projects
a sustained
to
expect
a
high growth rate) there is sufficient
continuation
participation for Allston Landing.
borhood media
of
effective
community
The availability of neigh-
(cable TV and newspapers) should be effectively
used to insure its success locally.
47
Site Control
There are
several active
Landing planning
uses currently
within the
Allston
1) Trucking operators, tenants at
district:
will on MTA fee owned land; 2) ConRail, grantee of an easement
3) Sears
from MTA;
Roebuck and
As discussed earlier, the relo-
on-site expansion is desired.
cation of
at will
the tenants
ConRail and
Sears parcels
in Phase I does not present a
However,
development.
constraint on
For each of
fee owner.
is an economically viable location and
this site
these users
Co.,
site
constitute major
control
of
the
issues in future
development of Phase II.
Sears:
The current location of the Sears facility is vital to its New
England operations
as the
Eastern Massachusetts
regional distribution
and Rhode
Island.
The
center
site
affords
direct access to the region's interstate highway network.
current facility
is intensively
(280,000 sf)
used
for
at
The
full
capacity and Sears has recently been forced to rent additional
space (70,000 sf) off-site to satisfy their needs.
Involved in
a dynamic, competitive, price-sensitive industry,
Sears faces
the possibility
volume, large
of an
inventory stores,
warehouses, toward
a high
evolution away
from high
large
inventory
served
frequency
by
mini-warehouse
distri-
48
This
bution network.
long range demand for the
will affect
Allston facility.
the relocation
In summary,
its industry,
evolution of
forced by
the risk
an economic
relocation may have to be
or the
incentive. In the latter case there is
delay in
of a
as a normal
may happen
of Sears
previously planned
development
new
until an acceptable alternate location can be found.
To gain
control of the Sears property will require aggressive
negotiation from
process.
The
city could
rezone the
a non-conforming use, which may
rendering it
parcel, thereby
expedite the
the developer.
It is
unlikely that
the city
would
attempt to exercise its eminent domain powers unless the Sears
parcel is
contained within
an urban
renewal
area
for
the
entire district.
ConRail:
ConRail has
expressed a
firm commitment to remain at Allston
Landing and
is not interested in discussing the possibilities
Major expenses have been expended recently to
of relocation.
upgrade rail service between New York City and the Beacon Park
Yards.
The only
discuss any
bursement
of
condition under which ConRail is willing to
easement buy-out
all
relocation
or relocation is complete reimcosts.
Given
the
capital-
49
in rail lines required to relocate, this
intensive investment
option may be economically prohibitive.
Rail freight
is a dynamic service industry which is extremely
sensitive to
its clients
ConRail.
needs for
long range
to forecast
needs and shifts makes it difficult
of these
dictable nature
unpre-
The
industries.
patterns between
shifting traffic
and the
transport needs
with bulk
The director of
ConRail's real estate for the northeastern U.S. indicated that
a
exogenous
shifts
Any of
Motors
out
pulling
of
United Parcel Service pulling out of Worcester,
Framingham or
would each
General
as
such
major
or
economy,
Boston
the
in
slowing
significant
impacts on their rail freight service.
have major
occurrences
these
greatly
would
if
diminish,
not
eliminate, ConRail's need for space at Allston Landing.
If ConRail
maintains its
easement interest through continued
relocated,
otherwise
activity and
is not
planning and
architectural constraints
a platform
uses on
develop new
There
the easement.
there
created by
are
major
having to
built in the air space above
potential economic benefit to be
is no
gained by the developer from leasing the air rights instead of
the ground rights.
has calculated
the gross
This is because valuation practice to date
the value
appraised value
the
discounting
for
incurred by
an elevated
of air
of
extra
rights by determining first
the
ground
construction
structure.
rights
costs
and
and
then
risks
Historically, air rights
50
development costs
in leased
rights development
no anticipated
space have
been similar to land
costs on fee-owned land, and thus there is
savings, as stated in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 142 entitled "Valuation of Air
Space."
The deed
easement" granted
of "perpetual
in 1962 limits the
easement to 29'-6" above Boston City Base which is higher than
the clearance
under the
rights development
be able
Cambridge Street
If air
this height requirement may
were pursued,
to be negotiated downward.
treat abandonment
overpass.
of rail-related
The terms of the easement
use as absolute and final,
in which case the land would revert to MTA control.
In summary, there are only three viable scenarios by which the
ConRail property may be controlled by a private developer.
1) Abandonment
by ConRail,
triggering reversion
to MTA
and allowing a lease to a new ground tenant;
2) Lease
of air
rights from
MTA, above ongoing ConRail
easement; or
3) Relocation
of ConRail,
termination of their easement
and issuance of new ground lease to a new tenant.
51
At present, it is impossible to predict the probability of any
of these
scenarios.
In the
event
that
ConRail
does
not
abandon their easement, there are essentially three strategies
which could be employed to gain site control.
1) A
could negotiate
private developer
as
directly
a
traditional land assemblage;
2) The City could exercise its existing regulations, such
as the
Boston Zoning
Code's "Urban
Special Purpose
Overlay District,
state's eminent
domain power
Renewal Area" (URA)
to trigger the
so as
and special use and dimen-
sional controls of the BRA; or
3) The MTA could use its eminent domain powers as per the
1954 enabling
for improved
legislation to
turnpike access
take the
ConRail property
(ramp relocation) and site
assemblage.
It is
highly unlikely that any private developer would accept
the risks
of time
directly with
and cost
ConRail.
developers possess
in negotiating a land assemblage
In addition,
the necessary
few, if
any,
private
clout or political leverage
required to successfully execute this negotiation.
The political and economic feasibility of a taking via eminent
domain by
the City
or
MTA
is
uncertain.
Although
both
52
agencies clearly
either agency
have the
authority, it
clear
that
would wish to accept this burdensome, and often
publicly unfavorable, assignment.
undertaken
is not
initially
to
determine
economic feasibility of a taking.
made on a course of action.
A feasibility study must be
the
practicality
and
Only then can a decision be
53
CHAPTER THREE
PLANNING/MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
provides an overview of the unique planning and
Chapter Three
market opportunities for Allston Landing.
tunities have
and city
ysis in
emerged from discussions with community leaders
planning staff.
conducted to
The planning oppor-
assist in
A
preliminary market analysis was
the programming and feasibility anal-
subsequent chapters.
The
chapter concludes with an
overview of unique market opportunities for Allston Landing.
Planning Opportunities
Many of
the site's
sections of
attributes have been discussed in earlier
this paper.
Development of Allston Landing also
provides some major planning opportunities for the Allston and
Harvard communities which should be incorporated into development proposals.
Planned Development Area:
The property's size, definitive boundaries, complex issues and
of
the likelihood
strongly suggest
(PDA) under
tion affords
a
mixed
use,
development as
the Boston
multi-phased
development,
a "Planned Development Area"
zoning code.
This zoning classifica-
more flexibility to the developer in creating an
54
innovative design
which
solution
can
be
modified
through
negotiations with the BRA to respond to changing conditions in
Furthermore, it allows for the physical inte-
future phases.
designation requires
phases which
The PDA
development area.
within a
several uses
gration of
for future
conceptual plan
an approved
into specific development plans as
get resolved
This
gives the BRA and community the
phases are
built out.
ability to
negotiate for an optimal solution to any one phase
within the
broader context
conceptual development plan
of a
for the entire planning district.
Improved Access/Egress to Turnpike:
As has
been previously
the Allston/Brighton
identified, the traffic conditions at
exit operate
at less
than a
desirable
level of service during peak hours. Development proposals must
respond to
this condition
by improving
access and egress to
the turnpike and mitigate the stressed conditions on Cambridge
Street and
its intersection
addition, truck
trial uses
with Soldiers
Field Road.
In
traffic which will continue to service indus-
along Western
Avenue, must
be directed away from
residential streets.
Improved Waterfront Access /
The North
Allston community
River waterfront
Open Space:
is separated
by industrial,
from
the
Charles
warehouse and railroad uses.
55
There is
a definite
need for an open space pedestrian system
the waterfront
which links
to the
Allston Landing
planning district.
planning office
of the
also identified
the need
neighborhoods through the
Both
the community
and
Metropolitan District Commission have
for additional
public
open
space
along Soldiers Field Road and the river.
Public waterfront
access could
be improved
by
a
community
boathouse or public landing for active docking of boats on the
Charles.
This could
be linked directly into the site's open
space system via a pedestrian bridge over Soldiers Field Road.
River cruises
and water
taxis could
provide
both
pleasure
boating and efficient transport to other riverfront locations.
Creation of Community Center:
Allston presently
where a
lacks an
public space
retail, and
is supported
the development
such uses
as a
offices
offices and
by a
recreational functions.
tunity in
tion,
identifiable
branch library,
for
civic
community based
central public
of Allston
open space
amphitheater, etc.).
"community
variety
of
center"
civic,
There exists the opporLanding to incorporate
center for continuing educa-
associations,
retail uses
(common,
local
professional
which relate
square,
public
to
a
garden,
56
Enhanced Community Image / Identity:
The current
use of
and industrial
the site
purposes
for transportation, warehousing
creates
an
unattractive
community
image when approaching Allston from the turnpike or Cambridge.
The redevelopment of this district creates a major opportunity
to enhance
the community's
physical image
upon arrival
and
establish a landmark development for Allston.
Market Analysis
Given that
is the
the earliest
occupancy date projected for Phase I
year 1990, it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to
attempt to
from 1985
program the
site based upon forecasts constructed
market conditions.
summarizes the
This section on market analysis
current market conditions for the Metropolitan
Boston area and documents the key market variables used in the
feasibility analysis.
The following
market conditions relate to the Allston Landing
site and support a future demand for mixed uses there:
1)
The Allston-Brighton
history of
neighborhood has
had
a
long
stable home ownership, the most stable in the
city according to a BRA official;
2)
The increasing
area is
profile;
migration of
elevating rents
ethnic groups into the
and changing
the
neighborhood
57
of the
The proximity
3)
residential locations --
well established
than 1,000,000
site to so many desirable and
people within
there are more
a 12-minute travel time of
the site;
4)
Extensive on site infrastructure and amenities;
5)
A large and multi skilled work force;
The site
6)
is in the path of extensive tourist travel
(approximately 10 million people visit the Greater Boston
area annually,
surround the
and Back
Bay and
Harvard
Square
which
major tourist destinations within
site are
the metropolitan area;
7)
The high level of household income within the primary
trade area (average family income = $37,000+).
Based upon recent lengthy rent up periods for new developments
in East
Cambridge and
along Route
495, it
is realistic
to
expect that the MTA site will be occupied by those seeking its
inherent amenities
cannot strike
and not by those who, for whatever reason,
an acceptable
elsewhere.
Thus, users
location offering
deal at
attracted to
immediate turnpike
their optimum
a prestige
are insurance
and corporate
both mature
ups.
riverfront
access and proximity to
Harvard Square and Back Bay will seek out this site.
bulk users
location
Possible
companies, bank computer operations
headquarters.
Possible smaller
businesses, emerging
users include
growth companies
and start
For the purposes of carrying out a feasibility analysis
for this
site
we
compiled
current
market
rent,
vacancy,
58
parking, operating expense, real estate tax, mortgage rate and
land
value
data
relevant
to
the
anticipated
development
program.
Market Rent:
As shown
in Table II, a listing of recent (April 1985) office
rents were
compiled at properties which, in one or more ways,
are comparable to the MTA site.
Cambridge market
barrier of
has not
yet broken
$30/sf, although
office building
amenities of
is very
at the
that
Downtown Boston,
followed by
although it
that
nearby and
the
scale
of
Back Bay,
Square/MIT (East
(West Cambridge),
the $30/sf
to
barrier
of
opened Charles Square
level
due
to
the
the availability
adjacent hotel.
survey indicates
Ave., Kendall
the golden
the newly
close
Harvard Square
concierge service
The survey indicates that the
In
rents
of
addition, the
is
highest
in
Harvard Square/Mass.
Cambridge),
Alewife/Route
Newton Corner and Mass. Pike West.
2
Because
rent level has not yet been attained in Cambridge,
is expected
base analysis.
shortly, $29.00/sf
was used
in the
59
TABLE I I
COMPARABLE MARKET DATA
Market
Building
Total
$Rent/
Date
# of
Complete
Floors
399 Boylston
535 Boylston
545 Boylston
575 Boylston
Copley Place
1 Exeter Plaza
1984
1965
1973
1982
1984
1984
13
13
13
8
7
14
221,000
90,000
85,000
32,000
845,000
211,000
36,000
2,700
22,500
0
200,000
200,000
16%
3%
26%
0%
24%
95%
$31.00 - $33.00
125 Cambridge
1984
6
185,000
105,000
57%
$24.00
1985
1980
1984
7
5
6
115,000
135,000
200,000
19,000
19,000
20,000
16%
14%
10%
$26.00 - $30.00
16
12
13
4
9
220,000
225,000
250,000
100,000
273,000
0
38,000
0
0
92,000
0%
17%
0%
0%
34%
$19.00
$24.00
$24.00
$25.00 - $28.00
Riverside Pl.
1970
1983
1981
1986
1985
600 Unicorn Park
1984
4
132,000
132,
100%
$23.00
20 Burlington
1984
4
100,000
9,
90%
$24.00
Mall Road
1 Bay Colony
Corp.Ctr.Waltham
1985
6
271,000
271,
100%
80 William St.
1985
3
71,000
500
S.F.
%
Rentable Available
Vacant
S.F.
(4/1985)
Back Bay
$29.00
$23.00 - $26.50
$25.00
$32.00
$27.00 - $37.00
Cambridge
a) Alewife/Rte.2
Park Drive
b) Harvard Sq./
Mass. Ave
c) Kendall Sq./
MIT
Charles Sq.
840 Memorial Dr.
University Pl.
1 Broadway
4 Cambridge Ctr.
5 Cambridge Ctr.
Canal Off.Park
$18.00 - $19.75
$26.00
$26.00 - $28.00
Suburban
a) Route 3
Drive, Woburn
b) Route 128
1%
$25.00 - $26.00
$31.00
Wellesley
c) Allston
230 Western Ave.
1985
5
50,000
50,000
d) Newton
1 Gateway Ctr.
1 Newton Place
1970
1985
9
4
180,000
150,000
3,700
0
Centros House
1984
6
150,000
0
e) Framingham
Source: Spaulding & Slye, The Boston Area Report, April 1985 (Second Quarter)
100%
$21.00 - $23.00
2%
0%
$22.50
$24.50
0
$20.00
60
Vacancy:
The 10%
the weighted
average of
office space
in Cambridge
The Greater
including the
15% vacancy
feasibility analysis approximates
in the
value used
Boston first
CBD, had
in the
the January
(8%) and
1985 vacancy
rates for
Downtown/Back Bay (11%).
market
class office
as
a
whole,
12% vacancy as of January 1985 due to
suburban segment
of the market, which is
currently overbuilt due to the slowdown in growth of high-tech
employment.
Our 10% vacancy value for the stabilized year is
significantly more
conservative
than
the
conven-tional
5%
vacancy allowance.
Parking:
Rent revenue
for the
structured parking has been included in
the $29.00/sf base rent for office space.
Operating Expenses:
Base +
$3.00/rsf
(Sources:
Leggat McCall
estate brokers; Hines Industrial)
Real Estate Taxes:
Base + $2.50/rsf
(Source: Similar to above)
& Werner,
real
61
Mortgage Rate:
rate used
The 12.50%
composite of
a 10.50%
major bank
during the
to
the
cover
in
prime rate,
of
actual cost
the
offered by a
the highest
anticipated
is
risks:
development
phasing, etc.
public approvals,
risk premium
nominal 2%
is
period of this study, and a 2% premium
scope
extensive, multi-stage
analysis
feasibility
the
conservative
since
the
The
bank's
of funds is likely to be 0.5-1.0% below the prime
rate.
Land Valuation:
In order
MTA, it
to determine
is necessary
undeveloped land.
on-site,
Bradley
a
&
the annual
to establish
Because
professional
Co.
Inc.
appraising properties
ground rent payment to the
of the
real
was
first the
of
the
specialized existing uses
estate
consulted.
with similar
value
appraiser
With
with
experience
uses, commercial
R.M.
in
proper-
ties and
turnpike related properties, the appraiser concluded
that the
current fair
site
comparable
is
$20.00/FAR sf.
This
feasibility analysis.
market value
to
a
prime
figure is
for the
suburban
used as
the
Allston Landing
office
basis
site
in
of
the
62
Marketing Opportunities
This section provides some specific comments about the generic
demands mentioned in the previous
housing, retail
and office
market analysis
discussion.
report, it
In preparing this section of the
was necessary to do some brain-storming as well as
make some critical judgments about the suitability of the site
for specific
known
sufficient space
The
users.
with
site
area
affords
and opportunity to create both a prestigious
business environment/address
focus
large
open
space,
as well
housing
as provide
and
local
a community
retail
and
professional services.
The following
discussion of
major uses is not intended to be
exhaustive but rather a cursory listing of viable uses.
Those
uses considered most appropriate for Allston Landing have been
included in
the proposed
development program.
Explanations
are provided for those uses which are not recommended.
Transportation-related Uses:
Planners at Massport and the Mass. Convention Center Authority
view this
as a
viable site
parking requirements
Convention Center.
any use
of the
for their
and truck
large-scale satellite
marshaling for
the new Hynes
The MTA Chairman has publicly stated that
site for
parking is a secondary priority for
the MTA and would be merely an accessory to the future highest
63
and best
of
use. Because
the
MTA's
disin-terest
and
the
inevitable community opposition due to further exacerbation of
the traffic
the site
problems, we
as a
do not recommend the development of
satellite parking
facility for major off-site
uses.
Higher Education Facilities:
Several neighboring
universities have
institutional expansion.
opposed further
The
Allston community has publicly
expansion of
more, the
development of
would not
provide the
expressed the need for
this use
in Allston.
Further-
this site under a tax exempt status
city with tax revenues from this prime
riverfront/turnpike address.
For
these reasons
this oppor-
tunity was eliminated from further consideration.
Industrial:
The
proximity
to
residential
areas
argues
against
heavy
industry or "dirty" industry.
The successful critical mass of
"clean" industry
developed areas nearby, such as
Kendall Square
in existing
and West
developing speculative
site.
buildings for
Furthermore, Allston
desire to
arrest the
along Western
tion, it
Cambridge, competes strongly against
Avenue.
industrial uses at this
and Harvard
spread of
have expressed
industrial uses
To increase
which
the
feed
neighborhood revitaliza-
would be appropriate to consider the inclusion of an
64
Allston Job
Training Center
for job
creation and continuing
education/training.
Executive Meeting and Exposition Center:
to the HBS Executive Education programs and the
The adjacency
new hotel,
together with
high-tech
manufacturers
opportunity for
rapid access
and
the
a centralized,
to Harvard,
Boston
CBD,
MIT, BU,
creates
an
high quality meeting room and
exposition facility with extensive communications capabilities
(teleconferencing, etc.).
This
facility is
not intended to
compete with Boscom, Bayside Expo or the new Hynes, but rather
to cater
uses.
to select
small groups
and to
complement existing
No dormitory demand is apparent given the HBS and hotel
facilities nearby.
Office:
The short travel time to suburban "bedroom" communities in the
Metropolitan Boston
area as
well as to business and research
centers, airports (international and regional) and other major
activity
nodes
creates
development at this site.
a
special
from "front
floor plate
to "back-of-house"
In
sufficient to
attract a
for
office
The site can accommodate a range of
office uses
floor plate.
opportunity
office" functions
addition, the
requiring a small
operations requiring
visibility of
major corporation
the
a large
site
is
seeking a presti-
65
building location.
gious "signature"
lends itself
site also
to consideration
of the
an "office
such as
computer, word
most advanced
The
uniqueness of the
visionary
future" technopolis,
processing
and
concepts
offering the
communications
facilities within the New England region.
Executive Fitness:
An executive
fitness center which supplements and strengthens
the office and meeting facilities as well as serves HBS executives, hotel
guests and local employees is desirable.
A pri-
vate club may also be considered.
Open Space:
In response
proximity to
for any
space
to the desires expressed by the community and the
the river and the MDC greenbelt, it is essential
new development to incorporate a generous public open
This
system.
should
include
passive
landscape,
formalized hard and soft landscape treatment and direct access
to the river's edge.
Retail:
In light
Mall,
of community opposition and the proximity to Arsenal
Harvard
development
of
Square,
a
Central
regional
Square
mall
at
and
this
Back
site
Bay,
the
is
not
66
Local and neighborhood retail is appropriate to
recommended.
residents
guests, nearby
employees, hotel
and resi-dential
provide
In
population.
the daytime
interest to
to
essential
also
This is
tenants.
new office
residents, and
service existing
variety
office
addition,
and
and
Harvard
the
community create a significant population to support a variety
of restaurant types.
Housing:
The riverfront
a transition
mix
and
type
market economics
determined by
an obvious
neighborhood creates
of residential and community uses into
The
Allston Landing.
the site to an existing
portion of
the western
well-established residential
need for
luxury
for
to the recently opened Charles Square. The
housing comparable
adjacency of
opportunity
an
creates
address
and
of
will
housing
availability
of
be
public
housing subsidies.
In addition
to the
above, the site should be
uses described
programmed for
a variety
of amenities
should include
areas for
display of
lore and
theater.
active use
small performance
The open
space should
and accommodate
Farmer's Market.
areas for
This
and activities.
local arts and cultural
musicians
and
street
be effectively designed for
uses such as the Allston-Brighton
A new bus facility should be considered.
67
Summary:
The planning
and marketing
chapter provide
the foundation
for planning
in
this
and programming
program and
plan described in Chapter
derived from these concepts.
The market analysis pro-
Allston Landing.
Four is
opportunities presented
vides the
The
necessary market
analysis in Chapter Five.
data to
conduct the
feasibility
68
CHAPTER FOUR
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
distinct options
Four fundamentally
sidered along
chapters.
Allston
with their implicit response to the development
market
and
issues
developing
Each of these options were con-
described below.
Landing are
for
identified
opportunities
in
previous
This chapter describes each option, selects a pre-
ferred approach,
recommends a preferred program and describes
a development concept.
options
The four development options include:
1)
The continued development of the Allston Landing under its
present industrial zoning classification with allowable office
and industrial
with the
uses consistent
development pattern
westward along Western Avenue.
2) A
single purpose
tight integration
natives ranging
satellite parking
technopolis.
use with
functional requirements
on a large site.
from a
facility
to
This would include altersports
regional
an
for a
arena,
"office
of
a
the
regional
future"
69
3)
A subdivision of Allston Landing into individual develop-
ment parcels.
4)
developer or
development team.
any initial
the BRA,
development by a designated
planned, mixed-use
A master
As under a PDA designation by
development phase must be framed within
an approved long range conceptual plan.
Option 1 is inconsistent with the community goals outlined for
does not
Avenue.
This option
likely
is not
Harvard
without support
from the
community and
of the
site for
industrial uses
The use
accomplish the
to transform the existing industrial image
community's desire
of Western
Two and
in Chapter
Allston Landing
to
succeed
University.
generate
will not
maximum land value which is not desirable to the MTA.
single purpose
would
traffic
create
option
community
also
large
for
volumes
acute
is
2
traffic
Additionally, it would not incorporate the diversity
of program
site.
uses
for
acceptance
excessive
Surges of
unlikely.
impacts.
and
support
Community
which the community would like to see occur on the
The development
dependent upon
under option
the timing
of
market
2 would also be heavily
need
and
total
site
availability and less conducive to incremental phasing.
Option 3
is a
developers would
standard subdivision
approach where
separate
take down a particular parcel and develop it
70
independently of
other sites.
This
option
forecloses
on
several planning opportunities and community goals relating to
the integration
its own
of uses.
Each
development is negotiated on
merits, and there is less opportunity for concessions
and trade-offs
which produce
approach would
position the
mutual gain.
Furthermore, this
MTA as a land developer which is
not a business it wishes to pursue.
Option 4
is the
development approach
Allston Landing.
This option is the best approach to achieve
the community's
goal of
a "new
high quality urban setting."
and community,
a single
communication and
flexibility creates
Although the
plan for
we would recommend for
From the perspective of the city
development entity
control of
a forum
developer must
future phases,
community of mixed uses in a
would facilitate
the development
of negotiation
commit to
process.
The
for mutual gain.
an overall conceptual
there is
sufficient flexibility for
adjustments in
market conditions,
phasing and infrastructure
improvements.
This becomes
a crucial
advantage
given
the
indeterminate availability of the Phase II site.
Preferred Program
A preliminary
development program
planning district
responds both
is presented
for
in Table
the
Allston
III.
Landing
This program
to the community concerns and market conditions
discussed in prior chapters.
71
Table III
Allston Landing Development Program
PROGRAM
LAND AREA (ac)
Gross
Net
PHASE I
BUILDING
Sq Ft
FAR
Gross
Net
13.30
Stages 1 & 2
Office
Residential
Retail
4.00
Stages 3 & 4
6.00
3.8
550,000
100,000
30,000
Office
3.2
670,000
Health Club
Conference Center
Retail
70,000
50,000
30,000
Subtotal
13.30
PHASE II
34.40
Office/Retail
Residential-60/ac
480 units
Residential-20/ac
80 units
Off.Condo/Ind/Ret
Subtotal
34.40
10.00
1,500,000
7.00
8.00
640,000
860,000
2.1
2.5
4.25
300,000
1.6
6.75
700,000
2.4
26.00
2,500,000
1.7
2.2
36.00
4,000,000
1.8
2.6
2.6
3.4
Turnpike Ramp R.O.W. 2.30
TOTAL
The program
50.00
mix contains 50% office, 25% residential, and 25%
miscellaneous
office, health
uses
including:
club, conference
and light industrial.
local
retail,
professional
center, office
condominiums
These uses are similar to the mixed use
program derived in the 1975 Allston Landing report.
72
The program must also respond to market conditions, land value
and economic
feasibility.
highest land
values, it
office component
program for
Since office
was considered important to hold the
at 50% of the total program.
residential use
housing types
for example,
use can support the
is intended
within economic
will need
The 25% of the
to include a mix of
constraints.
Phase I housing,
to be high-priced in order to support
the land values for waterfront property.
The program totals 4 million gross square feet of space in the
50 acre
district, which
yields an
overall
1.8
gross
FAR.
This 4 million gsf figure was deliberately established for two
strategic reasons.
higher density
First,
the program
does not
propose
than is permitted under existing zoning.
a
This
argument has a strong equitable appeal and would likely assist
in
the persuasion of project opponents.
Secondly, it
was considered
build-out within
based upon
prudent to
restrict the program
an 8-10 year development schedule.
an average
annual absorption
This was
rate of 200-250,000
gross square feet of office space, or approximately 10% of the
total
annual
non-downtown
Boston area.
Since
absorption
office space
in
is the
the
Metropolitan
primary single use
proposed for
Allston Landing at approximately 2,000,000 gross
square feet,
this projected
year build-out.
This
absorption rate
location
and
office
yields an
component
8-10
are
73
consistent with the city's objective to spread downtown office
development pressures into other locations.
The program is divided into two overall phases of development.
Phase I
site.
is programmed for the unencumbered portion of the MTA
Programs for property with prime river views and direct
access from
the turnpike
high land values.
commercial use
For this reason, Phase I contains primarily
and luxury
than existing zoning.
in 4
stages.
space and
must contain uses which can support
condominiums at
a density
higher
Phase I is conceived as being developed
Each stage would average 300,000 gsf of office
include the
riverview condominiums,
sequential
build-out
of
the
luxury
support retail, conference center and
health club components.
Phase II is programmed with a community orientation, including
540 residential units, at a density lower than existing zoning
(FAR 1.7).
A community center comprised of public open space,
convenience retail,
and offices
supermarket, branch
library, post office
for various community organizations is envisioned
as the focus for Phase II development.
Conceptual Plan
A conceptual
development plan
planning district
in Exhibit
is
III.
proposed
for
the
entire
The plan is organized to
75
respond to
the community
concerns,
development
issues
and
have
been
planning opportunities for Allston Landing.
The
access
and
egress
ramps
to
the
turnpike
realigned to intersect with Western Avenue.
several important
site traffic.
Field Road
circulation objectives
This accomplishes
for both on and off
The congestion at the Cambridge Street/Soldiers
intersection has
all turnpike-bound
been greatly
traffic to
enter off
reduced by routing
of Western
Avenue.
The Cambridge Street intersection handles only traffic exiting
the turnpike
for Cambridge
Street or
Field Road.
Allston-bound
traffic exiting the turnpike will
be distributed
west on
southbound on Soldiers
Western Avenue
or routed
back
onto
Cambridge Street via the existing Soldiers Field Road frontage
lanes.
Roadway and signalization improvements will likely be
required
at
both
Soldiers
developer's allowance
requirements has
for
Field
premium,
been factored
Road
intersections.
off-site
A
infrastructure
into the feasibility analysis
to assist in the funding for these improvements.
Commercial traffic
be directed
along ramp
provide below
Phase I
entering and
boulevard.
frontage lanes.
grade access
development and
leaving Allston Landing will
all
into parking
grade
These
lanes
structures for
access
to
the
will
the
central
The plan further allows for these improvements and
76
Phase I
to be
developed without the relocation of ConRail or
Sears.
open space
The public
and circulation
systems
the
provide
The public open space system
organizing elements of the plan.
is comprised of three basic elements; the "Esplanade" frontage
of Soldiers
Field
Road
community "Square",
links the
and a
North Allston
public open
and
the
Charles
linear open
a
3-acre
space corridor
neighborhood to
space system
River,
the
which
river.
This
occupies over 15% of the total site
area, not including generous setbacks along the major roadways
and the
internal landscaping
addition to
within development parcels.
organizational significance,
create development
parcels of
these systems
practical size
In
also
and proportion
for systematic phasing.
The centrally
located Square
landscape treatments
to
contains
accommodate
both
a
hard
variety
of
activities, bordered by a 2 lane, one way street.
ing
the
street
include
convenience
and
soft
outdoor
Uses front-
retail,
professional
offices, branch library and post office, community offices and
upper level condominiums with a village center character.
Hopedale Street
between the
and Esplanade
axis is
extended as an open space connection
existing neighborhood and the Square.
spaces are
expression which
linked via
bridges over
uninterrupted pedestrian
The
flow.
a "Commonwealth Avenue"
the turnpike
A
The Square
ramps
pedestrian
providing
bridge
above
77
Soldiers Field
axis directly
Road could
to the
be used
to extend this open space
water's edge
and
terminating
with
a
public landing or boathouse.
The program
has been
distributed to
create a
transition in
density and use from the North Allston neighborhood toward the
new turnpike
ramps.
Phase I, the property farthest from the
existing neighborhood,
gram which
an FAR
2.0.
has an
fronts Windom
FAR of 2.6.
The Phase II pro-
Street to the west is programmed at
of 1.7, or 15% below the existing allowable density of
Residential and community related uses provide a compat-
ible land
use transition between existing housing and commer-
cial development.
Avenue and
Heavily
landscaped setbacks along Western
Cambridge Street create a unified border treatment
to the development and upgrade the street image.
trial and
office condominium
Light indus-
uses are programmed to abut the
existing industrial uses bordering the northwest boundary.
Phase I
Table III
80% of
tive and
contains the development program for Phase I.
the program
Over
is comprised of a combination of specula-
corporate office
use.
The balance
of the program
consists of: 80 luxury condominiums; 60,000 gsf of lobby level
support retail
foot fitness
and professional office space; a 70,000 square
center and health club; and a 50,000 square foot
conference center.
The 1,220,000 square feet of office space
78
has been
distributed within
from 250-360,000
square feet per stage.
The office buildings
6 floors along Soldiers Field Road to 16
height from
floors toward
at 16
of development ranging
between 20-25,000 gross square feet per floor and
would range
step in
4 stages
The tallest building,
reach a maximum height of 195 feet above
floors, would
grade which
of the site.
the center
is compatible with the Embassy Suites Hotel.
The
taller structures would have an east-west orientation, perpendicular to
the water,
to allow
views of
the river from the
interior of the site.
The 75
luxury condominiums
are envisioned
as
a
physically
segregated use, yet the building form would be integrated with
other development
with a
components.
river view
directly beneath
The units
would be
marketed
and security controlled structured parking
the units.
The housing would step from 6-10
floors in height.
All 60,000
business
square feet
services
and
of retail
use including restaurants,
professional
office
contained within the main structures.
primarily
programmed
visitors and
to
support
use
would
be
These "retail" uses are
the
on-site
guests at the conference center.
employees,
Patronage from
the surrounding community would be encouraged.
The fitness
center/health club would have memberships for on-
site employees,
guests at
the Embassy
Suites Hotel
and HBS
79
Executive Seminars,
public.
the Harvard
The facility
gymnasium, squash
is sized
and tennis
required support space.
approximately 50,000
community
and
to contain
the
general
a swimming pool,
courts, exercise
rooms and all
The club would require a footprint of
square feet
and be
located on top of a
parking structure.
Upon completion
of Phase I, parking for all uses will be con-
tained within parking structures.
for uses
with offset
capitalize upon
stages of
The juxtaposition of spaces
peak requirements will be encouraged to
shared parking
arrangements.
The
initial
development will contain interim surface parking on
future building
sites.
These spaces
will be relocated into
structures prior to initiation of construction.
The landscaping
dinated with
during the
of the Esplanade within Phase I will be coor-
future construction requirements and implemented
initial stage
of development.
This
will ensure
consistent maturation of landscape material and early enhancement of the project site.
Summary
The development
program and
development issues,
tions discussed
traffic
issue
planning opportunities
in previous
by
creating
respond to
conceptual plan
chapters.
a
new
the
and market condi-
The plan resolves the
turnpike
alignment
and
80
improving the surrounding roadway network.
The plan is phased
in recognition of the site control issue vis-a-vis the ConRail
and Sears parcels.
The program
tives of
and plan
address the primary concerns and objec-
the community.
There
is a
program mix of diverse
uses which creates an urban quality environment of employment,
housing,
shopping,
maintains the
major public
total site
recreation
existing allowable
open space
area is
space requests
total program
and
leisure.
density for
system comprising
specifically designed
of the
community.
The
program
the site.
A
over 15% of
the
to meet
the
open
Twenty-five percent of the
is devoted to diversified residential uses.
In
addition, the planning opportunities outlined in Chapter Three
have all been incorporated into the concept.
Having developed a program and plan which seeks to address the
community
acceptance
economically feasible
issue,
in the
the
program
marketplace.
conducted for Phase I in Chapter Five.
must
also
be
This analysis is
81
CHAPTER FIVE
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
An economic
analysis was
determine project
tions.
This
conducted on the Phase I program to
feasibility and
chapter
explains
sensitivity of key assumpthe
feasibility
model
and
summarizes the results.
Economic Feasibility Model
The
feasibility
model
developer's before
upon 1985
was
tax return
constructed
to
determine
a
on equity (cash on cash) based
market conditions and development costs.
The model
was intended to address the basic issues affecting feasibility
("go" or
"no go").
For simplicity, the model does not factor
in various escalation rates in cost and revenue figures.
The twelve
be the
variables listed in Exhibit IV
essential requirements
bility.
to
determine
project
feasi-
The figures represented in the base case for each of
these variables
were derived
from 1985 development costs and
the market analysis discussion in
the bottom
were considered to
of Exhibit
derivation of
IV record
Chapter Three.
the basic
development premiums,
The notes at
assumptions
and
including the phasing of
structured parking and development impact ("linkage") payments
to the City of Boston.
The analysis tests the feasibility for
82
the office
Phase I
component which accounts for over 80% of the total
program.
land and
Other uses
together with their associated
parking requirements
have been
factored out of the
analysis.
The development
a per
costs and cash flow figures are calculated on
square foot
basis.
developer allowances
stages 1
development
costs
and
for off site roadway, infrastructure and
landscaping improvements
included in
Premium
are
estimated
and 3.
at
$3
million
and
Given the nature of the project
and associated development risks, a cash on cash return of 20%
was considered
developer.
an appro-priate
hurdle rate for a prospective
A series of sensitivity tests were run on certain
key variables
to determine
those assumptions
which have the
greatest effect on the cash on cash return (refer to Tables IV
and V).
to test
Analyses were performed with two dependent variables
the
land value,
relationship of
(2) buildable
(1) buildable office space and
office space and market rents, and
(3) land value and market rents.
Results
The feasibility
1,220,000 square
an economically
assumptions.
the development
model demonstrates
feet of
development
of
office space in the Phase I area is
viable real
A 20.5%
that the
estate deal
under the base case
return on equity (ROE) is generated by
based upon an equivalent land cost of $20 per
83
square foot
of building
rate desired
area.
This achieves the 20% hurdle
by the developer and supports a market rate land
value for the MTA.
An analysis
six
was conducted
variables
on
Variables analyzed
gage rate
the
to demonstrate
developer's
the sensitivity of
cash
on
cash
return.
for sensitivity included the monthly mort-
for debt
financing, land
cost per
square foot of
building ($/FAR-sf), amount of buildable office space, percent
of equity
required, market rent, and building cost.
The base
assumptions for each of these variables were adjusted in value
by 5%
increments, both
deviation.
positive and
negative, up
to a
25%
The model input these adjusted variable values and
recalculated the return.
Table V
displays the
Exhibit V
new ROE
values.
These are graphed in
where the slope of each line represents the rate of
increase or decrease in ROE relative to percent changes in the
base assumption.
$29.00
The
assumption
of
analysis clearly demonstrates that the
market
rents
is
assumption in the feasibility analysis.
percent decrease
in market
rents (from
the
most
critical
For example, a mere 5
$29.00 to $27.80/sf)
decreases the ROE from 20 percent to just 13 percent.
The second
and
third
most
sensitive
assumptions
are
the
mortgage rate available for debt financing and building costs,
respectively.
If the mortgage rate increased from 12.25 to 15
84
percent, the
ROE drops from 20 percent to break even.
building costs
ROE is
increase from
If the
$50 to $55 per square foot, the
decreased to approximately 14 percent.
Another inter-
esting observation illustrated in Table V is the effect on ROE
of reducing
the amount
of allowable
office space.
If, for
example, the developer was locked in on a $20/FAR-sf land cost
or lease
equivalent and
the developer's
20 percent
community
reduced by
via
office
demands,
program
the
ROE
is
is
reduced to only 12.5 percent.
Sensitivity analyses were also run on ROE to test the combined
effect of
simultaneously adjusting
all others
held at
the base
two dependent
case.
Table IV-A
variables,
calculates,
given various amounts of allowable office space, the land cost
which can
be
justified
in
order
to
developer's hurdle rate of 20 percent.
meet
or
exceed
the
If, for example, Phase
I was restricted to 1 million square feet of office space, the
developer could
only justify
a $10/FAR-sf
for land
cost or
lease payment equivalent.
Table IV-B
calculates, given
office space,
or exceed
space, rents
percent ROE.
amounts
of
allowable
the market rents which must be achieved to meet
the hurdle
were permitted
various
rate.
to build
As an example, if the developer
1.5 million
square feet
of
office
could drop $1/square foot and still achieve a 20
85
EXHIBIT IV
ALLSTONLANDING - PHASE I
Feasibility Analysis
(all costs in 1985 dollars)
VARIABLES
PROGRAM (000's) GSF
STAGE
2
3
1
Use
Total
4
$8.00
Site Finish Cost
Building Cost
Tenant Finish
Indirect Cost
Mortgage Term
Mortgage Rate
Op.Exp./Taxes
Market Rent
Stab.Yr.Vacancy
Percent Equity
Land Value
Tot.Office Space
/sq.ft.
$50.00 /sq.ft.
$15.00 /sq.ft.
30% of hard cost
20 years
12.50% annual
$5.50 /sq.ft.
$29.00 /sq.ft.(inct.pkg.)
10%
10%
$20.00 /FAR ft
1,220 (000's) gsf
Office
Residential
Retail
Health Club
Conf.Center
1220
100
30
60
70
70
50
50
----------------------------------------------
Total
250
300
100
30
310
360
250
430
380
440
530,000
Office Land Are a
Other Land Area
Total Land Area
Phase I FAR
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq.ft.
50,000
580,000
2.6
$6,853
Land Cost
1500
(000's/stage)
OFFICE COSTS
I
HARD COSTS -- S(000)
KGSF
| CMULATIVECOSTS(S/SF a 100% financed)
|
+-.......................................................................................................
STAGE.......-|stage cumu- | Off Site Parking
Site
Bldg. Tenant
Total Cumu- I Prem. Total Indir. Land
Total Yr.Debt
Lative
Premium Premium Finish Cost Finish
lative | Cost
Hard
Cost
Cost
Proj. Service
1
250
2
300
3 j 310
4
360
250
550 |
860 |
1,220
2,426
569
1,597
738
OFFICE FEASIBILITY
I
STAGE-
I
2,001
2,401
2,480
2,879
ALL FIGURES IN
12,505
15,006
15,500
17,995
3,752
4,502
4,650
5,399
23,040 23,040 I 19.12
92.12
33,171 56,211 | 29.16 102.16
32,746 88,957 j 30.41 103.41
38,067 127,024 | 31.11 104.11
27.64
30.65
31.02
31.23
27.40
12.46
7.97
5.62
20.06
19.81
19.41
19.22
S/SF
RETURN
-------..............................................................................................................
cumu-
|
Gross
lative
|
Revenue
less
less
NOI
Op. Exp. Vacancy
Debt
Service
% of
Cash Flow
% of
Before Tax | total cost
equity
250
2 j 300
250 j
550 |
29.00
29.00
5.50
5.50
2.90
2.90
20.60
20.60
18.06
17.82
2.54
2.78
1.73%
1.91%
17.28%
19.11%
3 | 310
4
360
860 |
1,220
29.00
29.00
5.50
2.90
2.90
20.60
20.60
17.47
5.50
3.13 |
3.30 j
2.20%
2.34%
21.96%
23.44%
1
147.16
145.27
142.40
140.96
J
KGSF
|stage
2,356
10,694
8,519
11,056
17.30
2.04%
avg.
NOTES: 1. Building cost represents warm shell and basic finish.
2. Tenant finish represents miniu builder's standard.
3. Indirect (soft) cost represents interim costs for insurance, financing,
rent-up deficit etc.
4. Debt service calculation assumesmonthly mortgage payments.
20.45%
legal & brokerage fees,
3.0
5. Parking premiums: assume overall parking ratio /1000 gsf:
Cost/Sp Premius Cost (000's)
Structured/Stage
Stag* Tot. Reqd.
$7,250
$2,356
325
750
1
$10,694
$7,250
1475
1290
II
1175
$7,250
$8,519
1140
I1
$11,056
1525
$7,250
1320
IV
4500
4500
$32,625
Total
6. Off Site Premiums
Linkage Payments (all in 000's)
>100kgsf
Stage
150
50.417
II
X
200
x
50.417
annual
88
108
Il
IV
&0.417
x
210
50.417
X
260
pet.
63
83
present value Roadway/Infrastucture
a10% , 12 yrs.jallowance
7. Office Land Value: assumes takedown in 4 equal stages
132,500 sq. ft. X 2.58620
X
$20.00 /FAR ft
a
land area
FAR
Total
2,000
$2,426
569|
0
I
1,000
0
$569
$1,597
426
597
738
j
$6,853 (000's) land value/stage
$27,414 (000's)
land
value - Phase I
$738
86
Average Return on Equity
TABLE IV
IV-A
Amount of Office Space
0.204455
110.00
$12.00
/FAR ft
114.00
116.00
$18.00
120.00
S22.00
124.00
800
10.59%
9.29%
8.03%
6.79%
5.59%
4.43%
3.29%
2.18%
900
15.58%
14.23%
12.92%
11.64%
10.40%
9.18%
8.00%
6.85%
1,000
19.86%
18.47%
17.11%
15.79%
14.51%
13.26%
12.04%
10.85%
1,100
23.57%
1,200
26.81%
1,300
29.67%
1,400
32.21%
1,500
34.49%
1,600
36.54%
1,700
38.39%
1,800
40.08%
22.14%
20.74%
19.39%
18.07%
16.79%
15.53%
14.31%
25.35%
23.92%
22.54%
28.18%
26.73%
25.31%
23.94%
22.60%
21.29%
20.01%
30.70%
29.22%
27.78%
26.38%
25.02%
23.69%
32.95%
31.45%
29.99%
28.57%
27.18%
25.83%
24.52%
34.98%
33.46%
31.98%
30.54%
29.13%
27.76%
26.43%
36.81%
35.27%
33.78%
38.48%
36.92%
35.41%
33.94%
32.50%
31.10%
29.73%
1,500
7.54%
10.81%
14.09%
17.36%
20.64%
23.91%
1,600
1,700
10.T7%
9.23%
12.55% 14.12%
15.87% 17.48%
19.18% 120.83%
24.19%
22.50%
27.54%
25.82%
27.18%
30.46%
33.73%
37.01%
40.28%
43.56%
29.13%
32.45%
35.77%
39.08%
42.40%
45.72%
21.19%
19.87%
18.59%
17.34%
22.39%
32.32%
30.90%
29.51%
28.16%
Average Return on Equity
IV-B
0. 204455
S26.00
126.50
127.00
Market
127.50
128.00
Rent
$28.5 Q
129.00
129.50
S30.00
S30.50
131.00
S31.50
800
-12.24%
-9.46%
-6.68%
-3.90%
-1.13%
1.65%
4.43%
7.20%
9.98%
12.76%
15.53%
18.31%
Amount of Offic e Space
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1.19%
-1.50%
-4.56%
-8.10%
4.30%
1.55%
-1.59%
-5.22%
7.42%
4.60%
1.38%
-2.34%
10.53%
7.64%
4.35%
0.54%
13.64%
10.69%
7.32%
3.42%
13.74% 16.76%
10.29%
6.30%
1,300
1,400
5.66%
3.55%
8.88%
6.73%
9.90% 12.11%
15.34%
13.08%
16.25% 18.56%
19.42% F21.79%
16.79% 119.87% 22.60%
13.26%
9.18%
16.23% 19.83% 22.99% 25.77%
12.06%
28.95%
26.10%
19.20% 122.88%
14.94%
32.12%
29.22%
25.93%
17.83% F22.17%
20.71% 25.14% 28.97% 32.33% 35.29%
23.59% 28.11% 32.02% 35.45% 38.47%
T
Average Return on Equity
25.02%
28.25%
31.47%
34.70%
37.93%
41.15%
1,800
12.16%
15.55%
18.94%
22.33%
25.72%
29.11%
30.90%
3.4.25%
37.61%
40.96%
44.32%
47.67%
32.50%
35.89%
39.28%
42.67%
46.06%
49.45%
IV-C
$/FAR ft
$10.00
0.204455
$26.00
Market
Rent
$26.50
S27.00
$27.50
$28.00
$28.50
$29.00
$29.50
$30.00
$30.50
131.00
$31.50
$14.00
$16.00
5.22%
4.01%
8.43%
7.19%
14.29% 12.95% 11.65% 10.38%
17.57% 16.20% 14.86% 13.56%
20.85% 19.45% 18.08% 16.75%
24.13%
22.69% 21.30% 19.94%
27.41%
25.94% 24.51% 23.12%
30.69% 29.19% 27.73% 26.31%
33.97% 32.43% 30.94% 29.49%
37.25% 35.68% 34.16% 32.68%
40.53% 38.93% 37.38% 35.86%
43.81%
42.18% 40.59% 39.05%
7.73%
11.01%
$12.00
6.46%
9.71%
S18.00
2.83%
5.99%
9.14%
12.30%
15.45%
18.61%
21.77%
24.92%
28.08%
31.23%
3.4.39%
37.55%
120-00
%22 00
1.68%
4.81%
7.94%
11.06%
)L
nn
0.56%
3.66%
6.76%
-0.53%
2.54%
5.62%
9.86%
14.19% 12.96%
17.32% 16.06%
20.45% 19.16%
23.57% 22.26%
26.70% 25.36%
29.83% 28.45%
32.95% 31.55%
36.08% 34.65%
8.69%
11.76%
14.83%
17.90%
20.97%
24.05%
27.12%
30.19%
33.26%
RETURN ON EQUITY
-T
MTG RATE
ROE
.
43.36%
38.93%
34.42%
29.83%
25.17%
20.45%
15.66%
10.80%
$/FAR
ft
ROE
OFF SO FT
5.00%
10.00%
9.38%
10.00%
10.63%
11.25%
11.88%
12.50%
13.13%
13.75%
S22.00
23.81%
23.12%
22.44%
21.77%
21.10%
20.45%
19.80%
19.16%
% Change
15.00%
20.00%
14.38%
15.00%
5.90% S23.00
0.94% 124.00
18.53%
17.90%
(+)
25.00%
15.63%
-4.08% 125.00
17.29%
% Change
(-)
Base
Case
-25.00%
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
.00%
115.00
$16.00
$17.00
$18.00
S19.00
S20.00
121.00
920
980
1,040
1,100
1,160
1,220
1,280
1,340
1,400
1,460
1,520
ROE
TABLE V
% EQUITY
10.05%
12.49%
14.73%
16.79%
18.69%
20.45%
22.08%
23.60%
25.02%
26.35%
27.59%
6.25%
7.00%
7.75%
8.50%
9.25%
10.00%
10.75%
11.50%
12.25%
13.00%
13.75%
ROE MKT RENT
R
MKT RENT
24.53% $22.00
23.36% %23.45
22.42% $24.90
21.65% $26.35
21.00% $27.80
20.45% $29.00
19.97% $30.70
19.56% $32.15
19.19% $33.60
18.87% S35.05
18.59% $36.50
ROE
ROE
RIO
nT
BLDG COST
-23.33%
-14.26%
-5.20%
3.87%
12.94%
20.45%
31.08%
40.15%
$37.50
$40.00
$42.50
$45.00
$47.50
$50.00
S52.50
$55.00
49.21% $57.50
58.28% 160.00
67.35%
$62.50
ROE
R
38.67%
34.67%
30.85%
27.22%
23.75%
20.45%
17.28%
14.26%
11.36%
8.58%
5.92%
87
EXHIBIT V
RETURN ON EQUITY -
SENSITIVITY
70%
60%50%-
40%Return
30%-
on
20%-
Equity
10%.
.......
...
....
.....
... .......
L-
0%--10%-20%*f,
-~
-30%
4
-20%
-10%
0
10%
20%
Percent Change in Variable
Il
Mto.Rate
+
- Space
$/FAR-sf
7
Bldg.Cost
A % Equity
X Rent
30%
88
calculates, given
Table IV-C
costs, the market
various land
rents required to meet or exceed the hurdle rate.
with land costs fluctuating from $10 to $24/FAR-
worthy that,
rents must
sf, market
It is note-
$28.00 and
remain between
$29.50 per
square foot.
Summary
The 1,220,000
square foot
office
and supports
economically viable
for
program
Phase
I
is
current market land values.
The assumption on market rent for the office space is the most
critical variable
must be
in the feasibility analysis and , therefore
projected with extreme accuracy.
An understanding of
the relationships between certain key variables as illustrated
above is important to both a prospective developer and the MTA
in the land valuation and negotiation process.
In snmmarizing the feasibility of Allston Landing, it would be
remiss to focus entirely upon the economics.
opment risks
associated with
There are devel-
this project which must also be
factored into the feasibility equation.
Any proposal
for Allston
Landing must be able to weather the
storm of approvals, permitting and community opposition.
the City,
State and
MTA supporting
With
redevelopment of Allston
89
Landing, there
is a high probability that it will occur.
uncertainty is
when.
Phase I,
the process
special interest
jeopardize the
ever
Although the MTA controls the site for
can still
be held
up by
community or
groups attempting to prolong the process and
project's feasibility.
cognizant
The
of
these
"stray
The developer must be
bullets"
and
take
every
precaution not to over-commit and bear full exposure for these
risks.
The MTA
must also
be aware
of these
risks and not
force unreasonable terms for the take down of the property.
As discussed
parcels is
must be
earlier, site
control for the ConRail and Sears
presently indeterminate.
economically feasible
Consequently, each phase
and contain
components
which
incrementally satisfy the interests of various parties.
Aside
from economic
solution to
open space
justification, Phase I provides the community a
the existing traffic congestion, creates a public
along the
pedestrian overpass
waterfront and could possibly include a
to a
public boathouse
or landing on the
Charles River.
The lengthy
and unpredictable nature of the approvals process
and indeterminate
primary risks
Landing.
schedule for
affecting the
Phase II site control are the
build-out feasibility of Allston
90
CHAPTER SIX
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Introduction
During the
past 25 years the Allston Landing site has changed
from a block of small scale private uses to large scale transportation uses
the interim,
via a
taking by
Metropolitan Boston
recession and inflation.
sharply affected
has
undergone
periods
of
Most recently, an extended boom has
property values
downtown markets.
a quasi-public authority. In
Exogenous
in both
the
suburban
and
shifts in locational attributes
and real estate values have escalated the value of the Allston
Landing site
ment.
to a
point where it is now prime for redevelop-
The MTA has recognized this development opportunity and
has begun preliminary reconnaissance for an RFP.
This paper
has documented
ically feasible
ded an
a politicly responsive and econom-
plan for Allston Landing.
overview of
the
significant
site
straints, and
development issues
sion included
physical characteristics,
the
MTA's
development
Chapter One proviconditions,
for the site.
authority,
con-
This discus-
abutter's interests,
existing
potential and a likely schedule for development.
development
91
and site
detail traffic, community interests
discussed in
Chapter Two
issues confronting
the paramount
to be
were determined
control which
A major improve-
development of the site.
ment to the existing roadway network, including the relocation
of
the
framework
a
recommended
future traffic
existing and
solution to
determine
was
ramp,
turnpike
for
community
as
preferred
the
needs.
In order to
acceptance,
specific
community interests were identified and a community participawas outlined.
tion process
strategies for
site control
Available
options and alternate
of the ConRail and Sears parcels
were discussed.
Chapter Three identified five major planning opportunities for
Allston Landing
be considered.
which should
certain market opportunities
and recommended
the Metropolitan
A preliminary market analysis of
Boston office
market provided useful market
data for programming and evaluating economic feasibility.
Chapter
Four
proposed
a
program
and
concept
plan
which
responded to the development issues and planning/market opportunities outlined in Chapters Two and Three, respectively.
master planned, mixed-use development by a
was argued
that a
designated
developer
development.
density for
percent of
It
was
The proposed
the area
this space
at 4
the
program maintained
the
existing
million gross square feet.
was for
office use,
for
approach
preferred
25
Fifty
percent
residential and the remaining 25 percent for a mix of uses.
for
92
The
into
factored
the
plan
conceptual
to
were
interests
community
and
opportunities
planning
ensure
community
acceptance.
The plan is organized around a public open space
system which
provides river access.
site respect the abutter's concerns.
on the
and density
to the
residential neighborhood
major phases
which is
use.
plan
A staging
and
adjoin the
function of
primarily a
is the
definitive
Low
The site is developed
most
programmed at
and is
existing residential
west.
I area
The Phase
availability.
proposed to
uses are
density, community-oriented
in two
The distribution of uses
land
from
distant
80 percent office
building
program
is
presented for Phase I.
Chapter
described
Five
constructed to
test the
program was
developer achieved
a cash
of
which
the
was
office
Under the base case assumptions
rate land
a market
model
viability
economic
determined to
was considered
feasibility
in Phase I.
program proposed
which included
a
be a
value of
$20/FAR sf, the
feasible development.
The
on cash return of 20 percent which
an acceptable
hurdle rate given the project's
associated risks.
Chapter Six
plan.
outlines a
The issues
preparation stage
for each.
to
development strategy to implement the
be
resolved
during
a
pre-RFP
site
are outlined and responsibility is assigned
Special mention is made of provisions which should
93
are
for
recommended
concludes
Allston Landing RFP and immediate actions
in the
be included
with
the
summary
a
of
The
process.
pre-RFP
management
chapter
in
issues
the
development process.
Site Preparation
improvements are
Significant off-site
any plan
which seeks
and best
use.
to develop
Prior to
roadway network
the property at its highest
development of
surrounding the
artfully reconfigured
implement
required to
Phase I, the entire
site must
to mitigate
the
be
improved
existing
and
substandard
traffic flow and provide future efficient access and egress to
Allston Landing.
The magnitude of these network improvements
involve alterations
arterials and
to
turnpike
intersections with
ramps
and
adjacent
significant community
major
wide
impacts.
Given the
for a
public safety and welfare issues involved, the need
solution which
ests and
a private
the magnitude of costs, it appears inappropriate for
development entity to be entrusted with the respon-
sibility to
wide
reconciles a myriad of competing inter-
optimally resolve
transportation
development at
issues
the issue.
related
Allston Landing
to
should be
All the community
a
first
phase
resolved during
of
a
pre-RFP planning exercise by the MTA in conjunction with other
94
city and
state officials and transportation consultants.
may require
optimum resolution
ConRail which
additional
land
swaps
The
with
could only be accomplished via the clout of the
MTA and other state agency support.
The preferred
transportation scheme resolved during this site
preparation exercise should be presented as part of the development framework
RFP.
in the
the developers
community and
This would
insure
the
both
the RFP that the
responding to
proposals incorporate a practical and satisfactory solution to
this paramount issue.
Creative solutions
ments must
of the
be explored.
MTA to
ments which
to assist in the funding of these improve-
deliver land in raw form and not fund improve-
would enhance
particular parcel.
turnpike ramp
Place.
Historically, it has been the policy
To
This
developer, UIDC
However, since
potential
of
a
project's
provide
access
economic
instance, was
to
Copley
viability,
the
forced to seek below-
UDAG funds
given to the city.
the ramp "improvements" in the Allston Landing
serve to
traffic conditions
MTA's position
which
from federal
development will
ceivable that
the
in this
market financing
development
was most recently the case with the
relocations
insure
the
at the
the MTA
on this
mitigate the
existing substandard
Allston/Brighton exit,
it is con-
could justify some participation.
The
issue should be clearly stated in the
95
RFP
to
assist
developer
the
in
constructing
a
funding
strategy.
II presents an altogether different
of Phase
The development
site preparation
issue.
Conrail must be relocated or the air
rights above the easement must be leased.
clearly rests
with the
"land assemblage"
negotiation.
MTA.
issue will
It is
This responsibility
It must be recognized that this
take extensive
most probable
that
evaluation
there
will
be
and
no
resolution to this issue prior to Phase I development.
major site preparation issue in Phase II relates to
The other
the buy
out or relocation of Sears.
This strategic parcel is
required to provide a compatible transition from the community
into Allston
a safe
and
Landing to
Landing and to meet the community's objective of
attractive
the river.
open
space
system
through
Allston
The designated developer and city must
take the responsibility for resolving this issue.
Structure of the Request for Proposal (RFP)
Aside from
RFP's, there
the traditional
boiler plate
for publicly issued
are specific elements that should be included to
improve the Allston Landing RFP.
96
Development Framework:
As discussed
clarity to
either a
earlier in this chapter, the MTA must bring some
the issues
of community
preferred solution
wide impacts and present
of acceptable options.
or range
This is
certainly the
case with regard to the transportation
issues.
It is important to insure viable and publicly accept-
able solutions as well as clarify any cost sharing formulas by
the MTA.
Through
collaboration with local community groups,
abutters and
city officials,
ulation
public
of
there should
development
be a clear artic-
objectives
which
provide
Allston
Landing
direction to the proposals.
Two-tier Development Proposal:
The
RFP
should
planning district
level.
This is
request
that
the
be programmed
critical to
entire
and planned
at a conceptual
provide context for the Phase I
proposal.
The general
capable of
withstanding development pressures which may fluc-
tuate during
concept intent
the build-out
period.
must be
flexible and
The concept plan should
include specific design and development criteria.
The proposal
and have
for Phase
advanced the
through schematics.
I should
support the conceptual plan
program, site
and architectural plans
97
Development Schedule:
Given the
magnitude of
build-out of
Allston Landing
developer should
propose a
phasing rationale.
contingent
the site
upon
program, the
clearly
term.
long
The
development schedule along with a
Recognizing
major
developer should
is
and potential
that Phase II development is
relocation
issues
by
others,
the
propose a scheduling strategy which accounts
for the uncertain timing of land availability.
Economic Feasibility:
In the
pro forma
feasibility,
the
viable funding
calculations and
proposals
strategy and
documentation of
should
cost
specifically
sharing
project
address
formula
for
a
all
required off site improvements.
Development Teams:
The diverse
ience and
nature of
mixed-use development
requires exper-
expertise with numerous product lines.
teams comprised
encouraged to
of two
insure the
mixed- use development.
or more
Development
development firms
ability to
execute a
should be
high quality
98
Recommended Actions
In order
Landing site,
satisfy the
and best use at the Allston
the highest
to achieve
generate acceptable
community interests,
land value
to the MTA and
the following
actions
are
recommended for immediate action.
1) A
comprehensive traffic study which addresses the regional
transportation network
taken.
The study
should
practical solution
framework in
seek
to
site should be under-
define
to the traffic network.
adequate capacity
and provide
surrounding the
an
optimal
and
This would insure
and efficiency at all levels of the network
the transportation
the RFP.
This
component of
could be
the development
undertaken as a joint
effort between the MTA and the BRA transportation department.
2) A
comprehensive
community should
This should
study
for
the
North
Allston
be undertaken
early in the pre-RFP process.
formulate specific
community objectives relative
to development
newly created
planning
at Allston
Landing.
"Interim Planning
The City
could use the
Overlay District"
(IPOD) to
establish the appropriate climate for a pre-development study.
The IPOD
does not
require the consent of the community prior
to implementation and should be on an accelerated schedule.
one year
time limit
shorter than
the two
is
recommended
year maximum
which
is
stipulated in
A
considerably
the zoning
99
amendment.
The results
of
the
study
should
be
used
to
establish development guidelines.
3) A
Citizens Review
Committee
(CRC)
with
its
associated
advisory and review powers should be created to participate in
the development
representing
process.
the
The CRC
community
should take
goals
in
the
the lead
planning
in
study
described above.
4) A
cost sharing formula should be structured to account for
the funding
of necessary
roadway improvements to achieve the
preferred solution, including an expected share to be provided
by the private sector.
5) The
MTA should
develop Phase
the eventual
MTA should
I of
use of
initiate
explores alternate
keep ConRail informed of its intentions to
Allston Landing
the ConRail
a
and the need to plan for
easement.
relocation
sites, strategies
In addition, the
feasibility
study
which
for relocation, reloca-
tion costs and alternate uses for air rights development.
Management Options
There are three fundamental management issues which need to be
addressed.
These are:
designation process;
1) What
2) How
is the appropriate developer
should the public sector team be
100
organized to
3) Which
represent and protect all concerned parties; and
agency should
take the lead role in the development
process.
Developer Designation:
The selection
the form
of a
of a
development
of
developer for
Allston Landing could take
sole-source designation,
air
rights
invitation, competitive
at
Copley
bid RFP.
as was
used for the
Place,
or
an
open
The sole-source approach is
usually reserved for situations where there is an overwhelming
clear choice
of a
interest and
resources to
case with
single capable
take on the task.
Allston Landing.
development process
sophistication which
developer with
In
sufficient
Such is not the
addition, the public/private
has matured in recent years to a level of
makes the
open invitation,
competitive
bid process more effective from the public's perspective.
All indications
be used
to solicit
input, via
tee, from
agencies.
are that
an open invitation RFP process will
proposals.
representation on
a broader
base of
This process
allows greater
a developer designation commitconcerned
parties
and
public
101
Public Sector Team:
The complex
nature of
and controversial
such a
large scale
development by a public or quasi-public agency clearly exceeds
the in-house
edges the
the RFP,
team to
inary
expertise of
need for
there must
manage the
planning
Just as the MTA acknowl-
the MTA.
a multi-disciplinary
also be
effort in preparing
a structured multi-disciplinary
process from site preparation and prelim-
through
design
review,
approvals
and
contruction.
A carefully
which
orchestrated team
draws
agencies.
and funding
upon
The BRA's
campaign.
unique
are tuned
the community
The MTA
property owner
and
talents
expertise in
strategies must
officials which
should lead
the
approach must
in
to
various
public
their
The elected city
local
constituents
participation and public relations
must be
able to protect its interests as
contribute
its
technical expertise
necessary to
insure general
its dominant
implemented
planning, market research
be solicited.
leverage and
obtain alternate
of
be
specialized
to the
economic
team.
development
The state is
development
policies,
sources of funding if necessary and exercise
political clout
to guarantee effective teamwork
and timely delivery of the public sector's commitments.
102
Lead Agency:
for a
In order
team of
public officials
and agencies to be
managed effectively and remain responsive to the schedule of a
designated developer,
which can
be held
the team
must have
responsible for
a
strong
the process
captain
and has
the
authority to execute decisions.
The State
ing the
appears to be the most likely candidate for directpublic sector development team.
ful management
Copley Place
in the
be most
of the
citizen participation
project is
arena of
expediting the
to the
process for the
excellent testimony of its expertise
public/private negotiation.
effective in
proper attention
The State's success-
process while
developer selection,
approvals and public participation.
The State would
insuring
design review,
APPENDIX A:
CONTACTS/DIRECTORY
Owner:
MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY (MTA)
David Nagle - Director of Real Estate
Joseph D. Feaster, Jr. - Asst. Director
Virginia Tsao - Jr. Civil Engineer
Tenant:
CONRAIL
Robert Soltis - Manager, Real Estate
Abutters:
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION (MDC)
Julia O'Brien - Director of Planning
HARVARD REAL ESTATE
Rob Silverman - Vice President
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PLANNING GROUP
Paul Donham, Jr. - Planning Officer
Robert Drake - Librarian
Mary Ann Jarvis - Government and
Community Affairs
HARVARD
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
Paul H. LaPointe - Asst. Dean, Director
of Administrative Operations
WGBH FM
WGBH TV - Channels 2 and 44 /
89.7
David Norton - Director of Physical Plant
THE BEACON COMPANIES
David Lash - Project Manager
SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY
Jerry Barnett - Director of Real Estate,
Mid-Atlantic and New England Regions
HOUGHTON CHEMICAL CORP.
Bruce Houghton - Vice President
State Government:
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Alden S. Raines - Director
MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY
Francis X. Joyce - Executive Director
Robert Sheehan - Deputy Director
Kenneth Leach - Consultant/Director of
Project Engineering
103
DIVISION OF CAPITAL PLANNING & OPERATIONS
Tunney Lee - Director
State Government:
(continued)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND
CONSTRUCTION
Juan Evereteze - Assistant Secretary,
Land Development
Community
Interests:
CORP.
ALLSTON-BRIGHTON
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Rebecca Black - Executive Director
Charles Doyle -
Board Member
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
AGENCY (NDEA)
Greg Polk - Executive Director
CITY COUNCILLORS - CITY OF BOSTON
Brian J. McLaughlin - Allston/Brighton
Michael McCormick - At Large
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BRA)
Stephen Coyle - Director
Richard Garver - Asst. Director
Susan Allen - Asst. Director
David Trietsch - Planner
Sandra Swaile - Planner
INSTITUTE
FOR
COMMUNICATION
Kevin
White
STUDY
OF
- Chairman;
POLITICAL
Former
Mayor,
City of Boston
ALLSTON CIVIC ASSOCIATION (ACA)
Veronica B. Smith - Representative
Ray Malone - Representative
Paul Golden - Representative
SOUTH ALLSTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Jim Hynes - Representative
Helene Solomon - Representative
BRIGHTON-ALLSTON IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mary Talty - Representative
COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL
Brian Gibbons - Representative
104
ALLSTON BRIGHTON CABLE ACCESS COUNCIL
Helene Solomon
RKG ASSOCIATES, INC.
Richard K. Gsottschneider - President
STOCKARD & ENGLER INC.
Robert Engler - Principal
Market Analysis:
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Greg Perkins - Research Dept.
LEGGAT McCALL & WERNER INC.
Sargent Goodchild - Vice President
SPAULDING & SLYE
Henry Brauer - Broker
CARPENTER & CO.
Carmine Cerone - Vice President
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORP.
Paul Yelder - Project Manager
THE ABBEY GROUP
Robert Epstein - President
Appraisal:
MINOT DE BLOIS & MADDISON INC.
Edward Wadsworth - Vice President
R. M. BRADLEY & CO. INC.
Murray Reagan - Vice President
Engineering:
R. G. VANDERWEIL ENGINEERS, INC.
Edward Quinlan - Project Manager
KEYES ASSOCIATES
Ernest E. Kirwan - Partner
Paul Finger - Landscape Architect
MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY (MASSPORT)
Leonard J. Barbieri - Project Manager
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF (HNTB)
Carl Anderson - Project Manager
VANASSE-HANGEN ASSOCIATES
John J. Kennedy - Principal
105
Law:
HALE & DORR
Howard Hessness - Partner
MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
Edward F. Saunders - Counsel
Raymond J. Fontana - Counsel
DIVISION OF CAPITAL PLANNING & OPERATIONS
Ruth Pavin - Counsel
106
APPENDIX B: PERMITTED ZONING USES
Legend:
Use Status A = Allowed
"
"f
C = Conditional
"
"o
F = Forbidden
M
USE
I
(Restricted
Industrial)
(General
Industrial)
Residential:
Multi-Family (3+ dwelling units)
Group Care Residence - General
Group Care Residence - Limited
Temporary Dwelling
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
Institutional:
Elementary or Secondary School
College or University
Day Care/Nursery School/ Kindergarten
Library or Museum (Non-profit)
Place of Worship
Scientific Research and Teaching Lab
Penal or Correctional Institution
New Cemetery
Columbarium in a Cemetery
C
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
A
F
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
A
Recreational:
Public Park/Playground/Rec. Bldg.
Priv. Grounds for Games/Sports (Non-prof.)
Adult Education/Community Center
Private Club
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Public Services:
Public Service Pumping Stn., Sub-stn.
Telephone Exchange
Fire/Police Station
A
A
A
A
A
A
Retail:
Local Retail Service
Dept./Furnit./Gen. Merchandise Store
Automotive and Truck Sale within Bldg.
Over the Counter Food and Drink
Lunch Room/Restaurant/Cafeteria
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Amusement Game Machines in Priv. Qtrs.
A
A
Office:
Professional Office (not accessory)
Clinic (not accessory)
Office Building/Post Office/Bank
A
A
A
A
A
A
107
Office/Sales/Display Space, Distr'g. Hse.
A
USE
M
(Restricted
Industrial)
A
I
(General
Industrial)
Service Establishments:
Barber Shop, Laundry, etc.
Tailor/Dry-Cleaning Shop
Laundry Plant
General Service and Repair
Funeral Home
Research Lab/Radio and TV Studio
Animal Hospital/Clinic
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
Vehicular Stor. & Service, Transport'n.:
Parking Lot
Parking Garage
Repair Garage/Service Station
Automotive Parts & Accessories - Sales
Automotive Rental Agency
Bus Terminal
Railroad Passenger Station
Motor Freight Terminal
Heliport
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Industrial:
Industrial Uses - General
A
A
Accessory Uses:
Garage/Parking Space
Swimming Pool/Tennis Court
Keeping of Animals (pigs excluded)
A
A
C
A
A
C
Open Air:
Open Air and Drive-In Uses
New or Used Motor Vehicles for Sale
Stadium or Other Outdoor Assembly
Mobile Home Park
Wholesale Business (including
accessory storage)
Outd'r Stor. of Damaged/Disabled
Motor Vehicles
108