BOSTON ARMY BASE II:
LESSONS FROM A COMMUNITY
PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
by
MARCIA JOAN SIGAL
Submitted to the Department of
Urban Studies and Planning
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Deqree of
MASTER IN CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 1987
c
Marcia Joan Sigal 1987
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and
whole or in
document in
thesis
copies of this
to distribute
part.
Signature of Author
Department of Urban
Studie
January 30,
nd Planii i,
1987
Certified by
Frank S.
ones, M.B.A.,
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
('r.
Phillip L. Clay, Chairnan, MCP Committee
4V
U'4S1, TEC1j*
RARAS_,,d
BOSTON ARMY BASE II:
LESSONS FROM A COMMUNITY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
by
MARCIA JOAN SIGAL
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on January 30, 1987 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning
ABSTRACT
a
in
examining
course
work
previous
paper
continues
The
The
development project in Boston called. the Boston Army Base.
and
Development
was developed by Boston's Economic
project
garment
Corporation in an attempt to aid distressed
Industrial
firms in the city's Chinatown area, and purportedly to save the
The paper
jobs of many residents of the Chinatown community.
planning
community
throuqh
a
the
development
evaluates
certain
lessons for all
in
order to illustrate
perspective,
community planners in the future.
The paper describes and criticizes the roles and actions by
the Economic Development
the development:
those involved in
and Industrial Corporation; the Urban Development Action Grant
of
community
and. the
administration;
the
city
program;
The work concludes that the project did not benefit
Chinatown.
the Chinatown community and therefore from a community planning
perspective should have been opposed.
As a result of the analysis, the paper draws four lessons to be
1) be
in planning for communities:
heeded by those interested
and
agencies
of public
and untrusting
critical
skeptically
proposed developments, examine their data and assumptions; be
clear of the ramifications of development; 2) do not be rushed
of
advantaqe
to take
order
in
development
into
or pushed
available public funds, determine how and who it will help; 3)
demand participation and control in publically financed or
supported development in neighborhoods; and 4) as an organizing
strategy oppose developments and programs that do not meet the
needs of the communities.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Frank Jones, M.B.A.
Professor of Urban Affairs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION
4
TI.
INITIAL PERCEPTIONS
5
III. UPDATE/REVIEW
1.
2.
3.
4.
IV.
Brief History and Chronology of a UDAG
EDIC's UDAG Application
UDAG Agreement for BAB Project
HUD Area Office
Close Out and Best Efforts
14
15
17
18
20
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
A.
B.
C.
VI.
8
9
11
13
THE UDAG COMPONENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
V.
Review of Site Selection Process
Delays in Purchase of the Site
Late Delivery of the Project
EDTC Looks For Tenants
EDIC
UDAG
Community Growth and Development
LESSONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNERS
VII. FOOTNOTES
TABLE I
BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES
APPENDICES
-3-
22
25
27
30
I.
INTRODUCTION
This paper was written in part as a continuation of a case
study
for
written
a
entitled.
course
Community
"Financing
The first case study, called the Boston
Economic Development".
Army Base Final Report, is attached and is prerequisite reading
for
this
raised
about
will
unanswered
the development
be
I)
Appendix
That
in
written
paper,
explained the complex financing scheme of the project
May 1983,
but
(See
endeavor.
as
answered
certain
and
project.
Some of the
the
reader
is
issues
substantive
questions
brought
previous questions
to
up
date
on
the
events of the development, but new issues and questions will be
raised by viewing the development in a different light.
The
Base
purpose
through
project
paper
asserts
that
of
review
this
of
the
a
a
paper
community
examine
would
Boston
the
Army
perspective.
planner's
planner,
community
project,
to
is
conducting
conclude
that
a
the
The
critical
Chinatown
community was a "loser" in this project, and that Chinatown was
agencies
and
to
the
initial
the
community
and
this
was
far from that which was promised by the project
by
comparison
examining
the
case,
can
we
leaders,
problems
if
we
events,
see
are
federal
programs.
city
misused
expectations
author,
the
processes
lessons
to
for
avoid
-4-
final
the
development
forces
all
community
planning
at
by
product
"hype".
plav
in
planners
and
In
held
project
and
such
in the future.
of
and
By
this
and
development
Boston
The
by
presented
a
Base
city
to
the
would
that
development
saving
Army
of
at
site.
the Boston Army Base
whether
help
the
project
or
Chinatown
What
Chinatown.
promote
is
failed to create
project
developer,
the
Economic
from
the garment
Development
center
and
as
to
intended
to
development
happened
what
center"
raised
or
economic
community
clear
"garment
capability
the
promoting
and
Questions will be
had
truly
thus
In order to save
a
by constructing
companies
the
supposed to relocate
the qarment industry, the development was
qarment
as
industry,
community
community economic development for Chinatown.
Chinatown
public
garment
the
and.
proposed
the
and
Boston's
base
was
project
Chinatown
save
economic
major
(BAB)
is
that
envisioned by
Industrial
in
the
the
Corporation
(EDIC).
After
the
project
and
will
paper
events
the
presenting
this
based
EDIC,
Development
from
the
on
(HUD)
Changes
project
and
U.S.
grants
and
are
initial
basis
what
The
the development.
city,
analyzed.
community's
describing
relate,
of
the
is
for
known
actions,
Department
in
the
within
growth
explored.
An
the
these
at
effects
Housing
are
and
of
of
Urban
discussed
community
analysis
the
time,
and
of
the
beliefs,
this
roles
of
project
perceptions
and
resulting
the
lessons
that can be learned by communities from this case is presented.
II.
INITIAL PERCEPTIONS
Chinatown
idea of
community
groups
the Garment Center based
-5-
were
originally
on the premise
sold
that
on
the
it would
said
Senator
at
and EDIC
repeatedly
was
project
It was purported
that
Perhaps
residents.
EDIC
to
done
being
was
(by the community)
and
Chinatown
aid
too,
this
believed
project.2
the
for
rationale
(by the city) and believed
project
the
a
as
used
the
from
Chinatown
to
benefit
the
II),
Chapter
in
(described
site
the
for
price
their
reduce
to
(GSA)
Administration
Services
General
the
pressure
to
campaign
public
a
of
promise
the
jobs for Chinatown that won their support.
saving and creating
In
economic
community
was
it
Indeed,
has
leader
community
as
represented
was
Chinatown.
for
development
one
office,
Tsongas'
project
the
that
At meetings attended by the BRA
for Chinatown.
save 1,500 jobs
victims
of
its
their
Duplicitous or not, misinformation did
own publicity campaign.
occur.
there
Indeed,
author
and
Action
Grant
(UDAG)
this
case
and
in
Because
the
public
the
was
project
others)
essential
inexperienced
was
also
that
the
funds
an
required
group
outsider
was
and
to
the
jobs,
times
group
this
that
it
appeared
community
project was directed at the people who held these
this
residents.
Chinatown
many
Chinatown
save
population
target
inferred
"speak"
to
a
(by
Development
for Urban
application
the
that
perception
initial
that
jobs.
to
the
There
was
made
on behalf of Chinese workers, a distressed. minority group.
But
was
a
a commonly
distressed
awards,
held belief
group
it is
that
of people
the UDAG
is
jobs and industry.
-6-
not the
application
direct
target
of UDAG
jobs goals
limited their obliqation by stating the
in
appears
It
terms.
generic
now
even
that
conveniently
but
workers,
an
presumed
obviously
project
Chinese
the
to
benefit
indirect
this
and
UDAG
the
Both
of the UDAG
groups
community
are unaware that the UDAG application and Agreement were worded
3
to exclude any obligation to them.
city
the
project,
employees
and
83
only
there,
of
description
firms
cry from the 1,500
Kneeland
came
to
to
statistics
relocated
the
These
and
the
roles
Table
number
are
workers)
that
from
is
fully
of
its
15
824
of
show that
firms employing 845 workers.
fruition
loan
bank
there
Center
syndication
local
(See
(10%).
UDAG,
of
(3%)
are Hispanic
24
(7%),
(for mostly Chinese
be
and
and
loans
The
Industrial
combination
(CDBG),
employees.)
Currently,
Street.
houses thirty-one
opment
and
jobs
supposed
originally
are Black
56
Minorities
Other
are
employment
1986
June
guarantees.
a
another
(BMTP).
Development
by
Grant
bonds,
revenue
industrial
funds,
Block
Development
Community
financed
was
Park
Industrial
the
called
attached to
been
Economic
the
by
(EDIC),
Corporation
Marine
Boston
developed
Center,
Center, and has
Industrial
Bronstein
now
is
development
Base
Army
Boston
The
for
I
far
a
were
35
and
leased
and
How the develparticipants
-
EDIC, the city administration, HUD's UDAG program and others is
detailed below.
-7-
III. UPDATE/REVIEW
Review of Site Selection Process
EDIC did a survey in the spring of 1981 that tabulated the
Of
space cost and eviction needs of garment/apparel companies.
the
47
responding companies, 77%
Oriental
support
were
whom
58% of
descent.
The
the
of
for
idea
about
and
(75%)
center
garment
overwhelming
expressed
respondents
of
were
47%
and
residents
Boston
a
eviction or exhorbitant
These companies employed 2,356
rent increases within one year.
people,
faced
one
third desired or approved of the Boston Marine Industrial Park
and
Boston
Army
for
Base
on
Based
location.
the
results, approximately 400,000 square feet
survey
the
(sq. ft.)
was needed
to relocate the companies enmasse to a "garment center". 4
Eighteen
analyzed
the
by
and
alternatives
examined
(companies
could
of
members
Association)
their
or
garment
and
locations
(Garment
GIRA
consultant.
the
would
rents
not
center
scenarios
Industrv
However,
in
would have been
pay
over
Relocation
many
too
were
of
the
expensive
2.50/sq.ft.)
or
the
space inadequate to accomodate keeping all of the garment firms
together.
Location
was
also
a
prime
In
consideration.
addition, to keep the firms in Boston, which was the purpose of
creating a garment center, the rents had to be competitive with
locations outside of Boston.5
The Boston Army Base
(and the BMTP area) was offered as
a
possible site partially because EDIC already had an interest in
purchasing
it.6
EDIC
had
analyzed
-8-
the
possible
uses
of
the
Army
Base
and
concluded
that
was
it
not
its
its
use,
its
amount of space,
large
for
office,
The lack of alternatives
retail, residential, or research use.
for
viable
(and the
location
fact it is adjacent to EDIC's successfully developed BMIP) made
it
for
ideal
the
rental
all
factors
the
Garment
exact
was
date
chosen
that by
use.
industrial
to downtown Boston and Chinatown,
Base
initial
to
conversion
and
calculations
in
the
emergence as
its
Center
(e.g.
decision
process
is
unclear
(to
the
proximity
available
space
consensus
by which
observer) .
this
were
locations
for
default).
or
the
of
(satisfactory)
one of the best
vote,
or
large
The
Boston
What
The
Army
is
Base
known
is
late 1981 Building 114 of the Boston Army Base was the
building to be purchased and renovated into the garment center.
Delays
When
General
time
in Purchase of the Site
EDIC
began
Services
that
negotiations
Administration
the
property
price
sale)
but
the
had
with
GSA
regional
(GSA)
due
was
thus
to
far
officials,
to
purchase
it
,
had
be
declared
been
unknown.
EDIC
had
BAB
from
known
the
for
some
"surplus"
(for
From meetings
expected
GSA
the
to
declare the BAB surplus and have it appraised by February 1982.
The
GSA,
until
for
four
unknown
months
unexpected
4.1
acquisition
cost
reasons,
later.
million
of
no
did
Their
more
than
causing
even
further
asking
EDIC
2
million
had
their
process
price
was
anticipated
dollars,
based
an
an
on
Protracted price negotiations
delay.
-9-
complete
initial
dollars.
their own independent appraisal.
ensued,
not
Much
of
EDIC's
planning
purchase price and
higher
The
far had hinged on the lower estimate.
for the project thus
it caused put the
the further delays
development at risk.
To
project
be
would
too
EDIC
to
"haven"
the
with
negotiating
was
a
rental
or
essential,
contrary
low
firms,
garment
the
were
costs
expensive,
As
industry.
garment
for
viable
renovation
and
acquisition
prices
the
make
the
for
the
GSA,
clock was ticking for tenants at 15 and 35 Kneeland Street, who
were
facing
into the Army Base
move the firms
EDIC
proceedings.
eviction
looming
in the
had
summer of
hoped
1982,
to
under
an interim agreement based on it's intent to purchase the site.
The
GSA's
late
appraisal
subsequent
and
negotiations
price
delayed any purchase agreement and prevented an interim lease.
EDIC
and
the BRA
were
from their evictors,
able to
obtain
extensions
Tufts New England Medical
for
the
Center,
firms
(TNEMC)
until January 1983.
also threatened the UDAG
The delavs and eviction deadlines
component of EDIC's Boston Army Base project.
loan
jobs.
or
grant
contingent
was
saving
the
garment
industry
Although the UDAG application was preliminarily approved
if EDIC could not secure the site before the
in September 1982,
firms
upon
Receiving a UDAG
were
evicted
and had
moved
elsewhere,
rationale for receiving UDAG funds.
crucial
component
of
the
there
would be no
Also, the UDAG award was a
development,
representing
4
almost
million dollars of the total financing.
When
began
to
the
negotiations
conduct
an
with
intensive
the
publicity
-10-
GSA
dragged
campaign
on,
in
the
city
order
to
the
purchase
price.
Senators
White,
Association
Relocation
Industry
Garment
then Mayor
EDIC,
(GIRA),
The
the
reduce
and
process
the
expedite
to
GSA
pressure
and Tsongas,
Kennedy
Representative Moakley, the local chapter of the ILGWU, and two
letters
Chinatown community groups all wrote
the
to
project
Reagan
top
A
GSA.
of support of the
official,
Administration
Edwin Messe, was contacted to ensure smooth passage of the sale
congressional
through
once
committees
the
was
price
settled.
Editorials were written in local newspapers calling for the GSA
to
act
quickly
and
The
fairly.
project
was
represented
by
many as vital to Chinatown, in that these garment industry jobs
were a major part of that neighborhood's economv.
The City's
The price
(3.5
strategy of public pressure proved
and a
million)
finally reached by late
in
awarded
December
1982
agreement were
workable purchase
The UDAG loan
1982.
and
in
July
successful.
(3.7 million) was
1983
the
final
UDAG
Agreement was executed, requiring the BAB project to create 139
and retail
750
garment
firms were
further delayed
threatened
the
Base.
An
engineering
from moving into
commissioned
study
However, the
existing jobs.
new permanent jobs
by
EDIC
showed
that substantial renovations were necessary before the building
could
meet
building
and
codes.
safety
additional extension for the firms
EDIC
negotiated
an
from January 1983 until June
1983.
Late Delivery of the Project
The
late
deliverv
of
the
-11-
project
caused
great
concern
the
among
confidence
lost
many
and
uneasy,
become
had
firms
the
June,
until
extension
their
of
Regardless
firm owners.
garment
In support of the UDAG application
in the project.
26 firms had signed letters of intent or prelease committments.
included
letters
These
improvement
for capital
own plans
their
(investment) in the space to be leased, a requirement of a UDAG
Unconvinced the site would be ready by June or whenever
award.
would
they
be
Twelve
elsewhere.
moved
firms
most
evicted,
firms moved near the BAB, to the Fargo building, which also had
lower
rents.
others
moved
city
out of the
city,
It appears that a
forever.
by
time
the
was only 10%
construction
and
been 70%
rehabilitation
the project
that
28
project,
tenants
get
a
and
lease
BAB.
preleased, but
finished
were
it
most
consequently
at
all.8
charged
While this
Prior to
considered
rents
may have
been
if
a
thus in
landlords,
were
premium
for the
esteem
(and saving jobs).
companies
garment
firms moved into the
elevated the
industry with Boston's commercial
way helping to keep them in Boston
the
the
into
leased.
EDIC asserts
garment
moved
actually
Although only two of the original
BAB,
lost to the
Only two of the originally
Garment Center had
opening the
Before
firms
threatened
probably
account of where all of
final
the firms have moved was not kept.
twenty-eight
jobs
those
while
locations,
Boston
other
to
moved
Some
they
risky
could
an unexpected
benefit, it does not address the failure of the project to save
the
garment
could. cause
industry
similar
in
a
protected
problems
later
-12-
"haven".
on,
forcing
Market
the
shifts
firms
to
jobs with
precious
taking those
still
of Boston,
then move out
them.
EDIC Looks For Tenants
EDIC's
all
assist
of
Fall
from
companies,
Boston's
In
expansion.
industry
promote
to
is
mandate
to
through
up
start
for
searching
actively
began
EDIC
1983,
and
city-wide
tenants for BAB, engaging the Codman Company as their exclusive
Because of EDIC's other economic
marketing and leasing agents.
development activities,
from
benefit
were
firms
survival,
find
the
new
facing
while
rent
seeking
space
Some Boston
that
increases
were
affordable
suitable
center.
industrial
others
could
it was known that printing firms
to
printing firms have moved into the BAB.
their
threatened
expand
the
within
printing
could
but
To
city.
not
10
date,
The BAB UDAG Agreement
does not
limit tenancy at the site to the garment industry, and
EDIC has
sought to use the Center to help save and create
jobs
in other industrial sector's of Boston economy.9
The
1984
deadline
UDAG
Agreement.
the
Agreement
consequences
happened
slowly
of the space was rented.
only 40%
initial
however,
leasing,
of
for
The
had
creating the
deadline was
to
unfulfilled
be
139
UDAG
jobs
1984 was the
called
and
by
agreements
for
in
an amendment
the
as
September
by
September
not met,
requested
and
city.
well
as
the
to
The
other
aspects of the UDAG and HUD's roles in development projects are
examined below.
-13-
THE UDAG COMPONENT
TV.
Brief History and Chronology of a UDAG
Urban
The
Boston has
Since
has
money
UDAG
in
dollars
1985.
sector.
business
local
its
inception,
5
over
received over twenty awards
the
and
billion
year
fiscal
through
awarded.
been
"partnership
governments
and
state
federal,
between
approach"
a
emphasizes
It
and
Housing
Administration's
Carter
Act.
Development
Community
private
the
of
part
as
1978
in
introduced.
was
(UDAG)
Grant
Action
Development
(for comparison,
New York City and Baltimore have received over fifty awards) .10
A
primary
per
based
city,
"distressed"
capita
income,
on
poverty"
experiencing
problems
similar
leveraging
of
(2.5:1 or greater is desirable);
to
moderate
persons,
income
to
UDAG
retention of jobs for
committment
to
Preliminary approval of an application for a UDAG
the
reviews
Central
and
divisions.
funes
minority
and tax benefits. 1 1
participation;
to
for
creation of new permanent jobs
(cost of $5,000.00 or less is desirable);
low
apply
also
capital
investment
private
may
Other criteria require
funds for those specific neighborhoods.
the
population
and
Cities with "pockets
lag/decline within a city, unemployment).
of
a
(i.e.
statistics
job
housing,
as
designation
labor
and
census
of
age
is
awards
for
criteria
selection
Office
of
HUD
recommendations
Federal
in
Washington,
made
regulations
by
in
appropriate
and
part
field
guidelines
is made
based
on
office
require:
demonstration that the Grant is causing the private development
-14-
a
upon
public
other
any
land will be
for how the
plan
a
including
project,
for
depends
that
develop
the
for
committment
a
the project;
for
needed
funds
any;
if
equity,
financing
firm
award;
UDAG
necessary
investment to
proven private
a
to occur;
and evidence that the grant will not cause
controlled or owned;
relocation from one distressed area to another. 12
and
the
The
Recipient.
City
Grant
in Washington between HUD
contract) is made
(a legal
Agreement
a
approved,
preliminarily
been
has
UDAG
the
Once
project
funded
is
to
supposed
begin with six to twelve months of the award, and be completed
of
life
the
field
staff
UDAG
award
from
further
the
been
"closed
loan
use
out"
if
of
out"
the
The
status
as
for
If
office
final
the
approved
and the UDAG office in Washington, a
is
as
best
stages
and
the
by
of
a
completion
that
satisfied
it
possible,
project,
by
monitored
is
agreement
field
completed
repayments.
funds
UDAG
area office.
"close
and
When
has
recommend
HUD
the
is
project
the
project,
certificate.
the
During the
twenty-four months of preliminary approval.
within
will
excepting
regional
any
office
completion certificate
is
issued when all financial obligations are discharged.
EDIC's UDAG Application
EDIC's
narily
UDAG
approved
on
September
from
the BAB
project
30,
1982.
The
then
Mayor
Kevin
was
prelimi-
application
White,
was
stating
by
that 1,500
jobs would be saved and 300 new jobs created by the
A
letter
for
introduced
development.
a
Application
supporting letter from Senator Kennedy
-15-
stressed
the
of
importance
that
many
the
of
would
unemployment
sianificant
both
as
Chinatown
the
minorities,
by
the
should
result
of
location
geographic
fact
the
that
and
not
project
made
is
reference
application
the
Throughout
occur.
held
were
jobs
to
referring
jobs,
these
retaining
to
garment
Boston's
industry and as a community facing the loss of one of its major
The application described Boston's garment industry
employers.
-
its recent up and down ward trends, its future viability, and
and
of minority
percentage
the
income workers
low
employed
in
the city's garment industry.13
While the
of
the
garment
industry
the
concern
that
of
clearly
garment
of Boston's
the employees
loss
rationale
the
application was not made specifically on behalf
the
people
the
prompted
the
impact
it
of
the
employs
was
and
the
application
Testimony from the local chapter of
for funding it.
International
to
firms,
Garment Workers
Ladies'
Union
was
submitted
in support of the project, indicating how dependent the Chinese
workers were on these jobs.
The premise of the application was
clearly that relocating the qarment firms from Chinatown to the
BAB
would
mean
these
saving
specific
insure
Section 108
for
any
by
this
new
by
a
provision
in
the
UDAG
and
(CDBG) applications that gave primary consideration
lobs
Chinatown/South
hoods.
authorizing
jobs
The Boston City Council tried
relocating them to another site.
to
individuals'
at
Cove,
the
BAB
South
development
Boston,
and
to
residents
North
End
of
the
neighbor-
This type of provision is forbidden under federal equal
opportunity
laws
(it
would
be
-16-
discriminatory
because
these
neighborhoods
have
4
populations).
identifiable
no
the
that
required
HUD
Black
Hispanic
and
be
language
illegal
removed from the applications. 1 5
UDAG Agreement for BAB Project
language in the Agreement did not bind the project to
The
Chinatown,
Chinatown
garment
through
139
create
the
139
the
BAB
jobs,
125
workers,
project,
(90%)
were
was
750
to
be
or
to
obligated
for
1,500
retained) were
and HUD
respectively.
of
to be
jobs
withdraw
HUD
EDIC was
created
when many
their preleasing
staff
presumably
reduced
EDIC's
for
same
the
later
adjusted
low
to
to
of
garment
the
committments
reason,
as
Of
moderate
to
of
reduce
the
its
estimate
firms
began
Garment
1,500
retained
as
take
well
(300
downward by EDIC
forced
estimate
to
jobs.
existing
The initially higher numbers of job creation and retention
created,
the
for minority workers. 1 6
(20%) were to be
and 35
income workers
development
jobs and to retain
permanent
new
or
The Agreement specified only that the
garment industry at all.
City,
firms
to
to
Center.
jobs,
a
minimum
and more experienced stand to job estimates.17
Pursuant
of
the
to
project
the
was
preliminary approval
routinely
performed
job
were
crucial
goals
role
BAB UDAG Agreement,
to
completed
(September 1984).
by
not on
in
be
HUD
area
schedule.
recommending
and
requirement
months
The reviews
staff
HUD
area
monitoring
requires explanation and discussion here.
-17-
jobs
twenty-four
office
The
the
and audits
showed
office
projects
from
that
the
plays
a
which
HUD Area Office
of
are
of
and market
opportunity
seems
analysis
of the
effected
by
benefit
from
Again,
claims
the
of
lack
there
said
to
seems
to be no
employment
in the
claims
be
in
the
critical
no
groups would be adversely
development,
the
the
accept
minority
that
developing
application, a
and will
One
project.
positively
of
exhibit
the
demographic profile of the Chinatown/South Cove
not cite
deficient.
of
or confirmation
perfunctorily
to
application.
Boston
appeared
there
Review,
In the
The check list form issued by HUD to assure equal
UDAG
area does
manner.
assumptions utilized by EDIC
and
statistics
facile
seemingly
research
independent
application.
the
a
and Market Analysis
Employment
evidence
in
treated
are
author's opinion that
of certain HUD BAB documents, it is this
reviews
and
From examination
forwarded to the HUD Washington UDAG office.
some
reviews
and
Recommendations
Division.
Analysis
Market
HUD
office
Employment
Opportunity and Fair Housing, and the
Equal
the
Development,
and
Planning
Community
of
office
area
reviewed by the
is
a UDAG award
application for
Each
HUD
its
area
They
This
source.18
office
followed
staff
is
is
procedures
not
or
to
was
suggest that
in
established
any
way
through
Federal regulations and policies that apparently do not require
the
in-depth analysis the
general public might expect
for such
large public expenditures.
The HUD office in Washington is where the decision is made
whether
reviews,
or
not to fund a UDAG project.
there
are
many
other
-18-
factors
Beside the area office
(including
political
pressure)
After a grant is awarded, responsibility for the project
here.
is
sent back
of
control
numbers
large
(and
by
bound
is
office
as is the
Disparity and disagreement can occur,
and corporations,
case within many large organizations
or
Agreement
the
but the
decisions
other
any
can
forth
and
back
of documents)
transfer
The
for monitoring.
area office
to the
be cumbersome.
area
discussed
not
are
that
decision
each
in
involved
made in Washington.
Follow-up and monitoring is accomplished through audits of
the
projects
reports
and periodic
of
creation
job
initial audit was
and
The
for
an
HUD
area
amendment
the
providing
By September 1984,
to
office
the
to
lobs
the above
that
the
extend
the
months.
forty-eight
mitigating factors that supported this amendment.
limit
time
twenty-four
agreement
by
EDIC
stated
by
month
restriction
staff
in
in
the
was
the
central
9
the
The
specified
the Center was only 40%
recommended
Agreement to
Recipient.
project.
the
performed directly after
twenty-four months.
leased.
of
retention
the
audits revealed
In the case of the Boston Army Base, these
lack
by
submitted
UDAG
apply
deadline
There was no
The
inserted
office.
for
were
There
application.
apparently
UDAG
City
As
in
a
the
general
rule, twenty-four months is allowed for completion of a project
but
more
time
can
be
allowed
for
exceptions.
In
addition,
there was a fault in the original agreement because in that the
construction of tenant improvements was not due to be completed
until
December
unrealistic
1984.
deadline
for
Therefore,
completing
-19-
September
jobs
goals
1984
if
was
an
companies
This discrepancy can be attributed to the inconsistency
later.
inappropriate definitions
Development
(Neighborhood
a
define
new
rehiring
whether
off
laid
and
as
the
as
descent
about
arose
to
how
use)
and
creating
new
to
numbers
constituted
employees
(from HUD's view, it does not.) 2
jobs
also
dates
(what baseline
job
of Portuguese
and. problems
Questions
and
personnel
At one point,
persons
there had mistakenly counted
minorities.
created,
served
Agency)
and Employment
data
The city's NDEA
of minority status.
this project.
for
job monitor
city's
until
insufficient
the city on the number of new jobs
by
collection
or
ineffective
showed
also
audits
The
(produce jobs).
September 1986 to complete the project
The
EDIC
allowing
approved,
was
amendment
the
for
request
offices. 20
area
and
central
the
between
occur
can
that
capacity until two months
full
were not expected to operate at
1
Close Out and Best Efforts
in
improvement
jobs
of
created
Boston
to
According
reporting
of
completion
job
have
efforts
accomplish
the
part
the
HUD
those
funding
of
staff
the
criteria,
yet
the
the
that
a
in
satisfactory
development.
on
made
a
and was
proposing
there
their
is
is
-20-
denied,
efforts"
reasonable
good
and/or
faith on
If
estimates.
does
considered
of
Evaluation
and
earnest
found
numbers
"best
developer/recipient
project
to be dispersed
and
based
goals;
the
developers
finds
is
goals
audits,
subsequent
the BAB
developers
criteria:
to
methods
retained by
and
staff
HUD
in
not meet
default,
HUD
can
any
require
it
that best efforts have been made,
deemed
is
If
from the Award.
immediate repayment of monev already spent
project
the
is
"closed out". 2
declared
for
(responsible
staff
Division
Planning
Community
The
close out review) did auestion the lack of garment firms at the
site
and did
Center
Garment
than
(less
delivery
the
viewed
upon
EDIC's
attempt
chose
other
control.
to
wait
BAB) .
at
than
the
HUD
for
the
The late
promised
rents
were
all
favorably
looked
printing
They
elsewhere
rents
alternatives
Also,
assist
not
cheaper
higher
out why.
find
or could
found
slightly
firms
that
out of
EDIC's
the
or
to
EDIC offered
ft.
project,
fact
as
ready,
$2.75/sq.
the
of
be
to
research
firms would
that many of the
found
and
independent
some
firms.
HUD
(and the BAB project) did put forth their
determined that EDIC
best efforts at completing the job goals.
The
out
Boston
status
in
recommended
in
Army
the
the
Base
Fall
Summer
project
1986.
of
was
At
1986,
officially
the
only
time
78
given
close
new
jobs
close
out
was
had been
created, a little more than half of the number of jobs that was
supposed
to be
created
by
the UDAG
award
through
the
The total workforce at the Center was almost 800 at
722
jobs
are
the
other
the
current workforce
presumably
of
845
the
retained
employees,
jobs within garment or apparel companies.
-21-
no more
project.
that time,
jobs.
than
Within
275
are
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
V.
EDIC
A.
It is the author's opinion that EDIC wanted to develop the
without
the
Garment
agency,
but
it
a
has
of
a
and
are
BMIP
and
pulling"
city
In one public announcement the
as
hailed
parks.
industrial
a
by
lobbying
next
the
city
the
"string
extensive
be
can
of
Market"
"Quincy
support,
strong
The
public
administration's
city
policy on economic development.
BAB
be
to City Hall
strong connection
and
tool
and
expression
an
not
The very creation of an agency such as EDIC
and city politics.
is
deep
EDIC may
Project.
Center
or
with
so
done
have
probably
would
and
Base
Army
Boston
as
interpreted
The
determination on the part of city to develop the BAB area.
previous
case
purchase
the
Navy
the
Base,
and
Boston
A
Design
EDIC
that
the
has
Center has
the
and
development
other
industrial
The
spurred
opened
city
Base
this
project
type
of
was
not
development
another
economic
community
to
(e.g.
activities
other
in
wanted
part of
is rapidly becoming nationally acclaimed.
Army
Chinatown,
for
site
Base).
area.
suggested
the
While the
development
development
in
for
helps
certainly
the city's economy.
As
in
the
a developer, though, EDIC turned
BAB
development,
in a poor performance
Pre-committment
letters
members were
not binding, and were a poor basis
some
square
400,000
purchase
process
the
feet.
Also,
EDIC
GSA, and problems
-22-
was
from
for developing
unprepared
in this
GIRA
process
for
the
should
A
analysis.
higher
possibly
their
purchase
price
it
instead
for,
planned
better
in
examined
intricately
been more
have
have
should
been
at
development
whole
the
put
availability
site
risk.
EDIC does not appear to have kept track of how many of the
did
saved.
actually
were
the
no
That
community
seems unfair
of
request
or
the plight
it
jobs
had
to
give
is
obligation
since
to
such
required
nor
accounting.
or
demanded
application was
the
save
so,
do
an
garment workers
of these
to
intended
require EDIC
not
them
unfortunate
and
based on
made
did
HUD
accounting
such
firm
garment
Chinatown
original
really
losing their
jobs.
The project and EDIC are not accountable for the nature or
results
the
of
city
loosely
the
development
of
or
the
obligated
economic
activity.
planning
process.
subject
to public
to
country
to
the
for
community,
that
to
create
This
is
a
serious
While
as
a
quasi-public
the
city
(and
application for
trust
for
the
communities
supported
its
effected
to
take
part
a
induce
the
public
agency
EDIC
it
is
claims
prepares
and
submits
an
and accept a public
responsibility to inform the
changes
in,
in
only
to
and
the groups
they assume
They have
of
flaw
are
of
When EDIC, acting on behalf
citizens)
federal money,
city.
jobs
and pressure,
to represent are really owed more.
of
some
citizens
They
matter.
HUD
scrutiny
the
and
in
to
developments
give
a
they
are
satisfactory
explanations of said changes.
Moreover,
from a
community planning perspective, EDIC,
-23-
as
a
had
a
a
far
involve
to
responsibility
than they
extent
greater
private
a
like
much
Acting
development.
BAB
the
in
city,
groups to
community
and include
did
the
of
representative
developer, they concerned themselves mostly with the process of
deadlines.
construction
and
the
nature
to
required
Because
their
of
of
more
in
status
is
EDIC
activities,
surface
than
and
financing
independent
their
development
any
include
up
caught
getting
project,
the
building
not
community
participation, mostly in the form of public hearings.
In
Boston Army Base project,
the
community
could
leaders
participate by joining GIRA, but the focus of this organization
was on the garment companies of Chinatown, not its people.
was
at
these
public
hearings
community leaders that were
and
jargon
professional
community
economic
planning
projects,
projects
such
agreements
these
for
involved
strive
in
agencies,
the
few
project
this
Chinatown.
groups
should
that
(mis) led by rhetoric
that
understand
local
with developing
meetings
involved were
development
the
as
to
and
It
to
In
in
to
future
development
obtain
order
was
definitive
insure
full
participation in and accountability of projects.
EDIC
within
is not the body to do community economic development
the
city
of Boston, although
this is misleading.
for
Boston's
economic
the
base
economic
base
appear
to do
so
Their mandate is to retain and create
residents
of
they
the
of
(from
whole
a
city,
particular
any
community) ,
not
specifically
community.
improving
to
They
and
jobs
the
improve
do
their
projects, though, by advertising how much they help communities
-24-
by
saving
its
residents'
In
jobs.
this
case,
there
was
a
somewhat illogical assertion, inferred by EDIC, and accepted by
the
community
would
be
and
public,
accomplished
that
by
community
moving
the
economic
garment
development
industry
out
of
Chinatown.
No
and
long
term
planning
EDIC
Chinatown.
relationship
staff
had
existed
been
in
close
between
EDIC
contact
with
business owners in the community but showed no understanding of
what
the
community
as
a
whole
needed
been a community planning agency,
problem
the
through
quality
working
the
of
eves
garment
conditions,
of
or
wanted.
If
they would have
Chinatown
industry
jobs
advancement)
and
they
had
looked at
the
residents,
(i.e.
questioning
wages/benefits,
explored
the
future
employment and training needs of Chinatown residents.
B.
UDAG
UDAG,
place
and
spurring
jobs
as
and
an
physical
economic
This
-
business
poverty.
job
a
development
over
will
the
UDAG
create
a
growth
will
public
people
program
better
policy,
development.
assumes
quality
help
that
of
"domino" theory
eventually
favors
By
more
life
for
of economics
to
alleviate
The UDAG agreement does commit the project to giving
to
hidden
disadvantaged
economic
federal
relies heavily on a
preference
imply
of
growth,
housing
people.
more
expression
low
and
assumption
groups
development
are
moderate
(and
income
flaw)
-
interchangeable
project.
The
-25-
nature
people.
that
in
of
This
may
distinctively
this
the
type
iobs
to
of
be
retained
created
or
Federal
policy makers.
seemed
UDAG
This
that
$26,000/job
some
must
awards
the quality, of
quantity, not
the
UDAG
by
was
the
to be
to
only
to
spent
the
consider
For
jobs.
industry
garment
by
reconsidered
be
139
create
jobs,
one might consider the alternative uses for such a large sum of
money
(e.g. retraining).
If
the
create more
government
federal
jobs,
is
counting
on
to
UDAG
help
it must discontinue funding projects such as
the BAB where only 56%
of the new jobs goals
the BAB project may have met HUD's
EDIC and
is met.
"best efforts" criteria, but
one must ask if 3.7 million dollars of public money is too much
money
to
be
development
job
per
against
judged
a
best
initially had a ratio
created.
These
efforts
of over
ratios
are
The
criteria.
$26,000
considered
BAB
UDAG dollars
by
HUD
when
applications are approved or denied, so cost/benefit ratios are
an
accepted
tool
to
use
in
arguing
When the promised number of jobs
be much higher than predicted.
over
$47,000
UDAG dollars per
for
or
against
a
project.
is not created, the ratio can
The final BAB project ratio was
job.
Extremely high ratios
such
as this one could indicate that certain kinds of projects being
funded by UDAG are inefficient in achieving their goals.
When
allowing
a best efforts
criteria,
federal
policy may
be trying to be flexible, but it's a too haphazard treatment of
millions
of
consider
enforcing
contract,
taxpayers)
dollars,
or
for
devise
each
and
vulnerable
specific
or
plans
housing
-26-
HUD
abuse.
performance
repayment
job
to
of
that
unit
the
should
Agreement
compensate
not
produced
(to
as
of risky delays
pattern or history
shown a
that have
projects
of
types
some
funding
avoid
to
sure
be
should
HUD
promised.
or unrealistic jobs goals.
The best efforts criteria, the sometimes cursory review of
the
and
community
the
contact with
the
lack of
limited
community
participation
program
is merely a funnel for federal dollars, not a planning
applications,
Unless and until the program changes, they will offer
program.
(and their planners) to learn
the money, but it is up to cities
from
UDAG
the
that
indications
are
Poor
projects.
turn
and
mistakes
these
down
tempting
past
UDAG
on
performance
money
grants
for
can
these
limit
a city from future consideration for UDAG funds.
eliminate
avoid
jeopardizing
lobby
against
programs,
other
projects
for
funding
UDAG
seem
can
than
To
should
groups
community
or
to
address their problems but really do not.
C.
Community Growth and Development
problems
The
leaders on
community
need
of
the
garment
Chinatown
focused
workers
its economic and employment problems,
the
neighborhood,
to have more control over the land in their
and the need to make Tufts and the city more responsive to the
needs.
community's
catalyst
this
there
the
Consolidated
old
many
the
ways,
BAB
project
school
major
was
community
Benevolent
but
most
communication
little
organizations.
Association
powerful
-27-
of
(CCBA)
the
was
groups.
or
was
a
Prior to
for change and growth within the community.
"crisis"
between
In
coordination
The
Chinese
viewed
The
as
the
Chinatown
Housing
development. 2 4
housing
were
they
in their ability to
fostering new found confidence
successful,
in
and
Center,
Medical
England
New
Tufts
confront
internal
together, united, to
came
These diverse groups
with
involved
been
primarily
had
and
problems,
organization
an
as
of
thought
was
(CCEDC)
Corporation
Development
Economic
Community
Chinatown
The
radicals.
young
the
as
seen
was
Force
Task
Land
and
shape their community.
previous
The
on
TNMEC
against Tufts,
in
City
the
from
described
study
groups
Chinatown
Chinatown.
felt powerless
help
case
for
had,
of
time,
not receive
community
the
of
Each
long
a
felt they would
and
matter.
this
encroachment
the
groups described above had begun to realize the desperate need
for
education
leadership
traditional
the
of
the
the
CCBA.
groups
took
of
community
Task
the
and
and
the
between
Negotiations
place,
CCEDC
of
power
the
hiring
in
record
Force
without
Tufts
approach
poor
and Tufts'
However,
to
hesitant
leaders
training,
residents.
community
were
and
members
of
these younger community groups gained leadership positions in a
new body,
Tufts.
created
to
represent the community
in
dealings with
They requested and received a $100,000 grant from TNMEC
for a training program, along with a committment from Tufts for
of
placement
program has
medical
the
graduated. 120
office
Occupational
first
program's
skills
Training
people
in
training
Center
operate the program.25
-28-
and
graduates.
the
past two years
program.
Bay
training
The
State
The
from a
Chinatown
Skills
Bureau
that
co-sponsored
was
institution
medical
of
expansion
and
development
approved
by
The amendment restricts the
in December 1981.
the city council
BRA was
the
and
CCBA
by the
amendment
zoning
a
when
felt
was
victory
additional
An
the
within
city and subjects all such plans to review by neighborhoods and
the
An
BRA.
Mayor
the
advise
and
expansions
proposed
review
created
later
was
board
review
institutional
to
related
on
26
.s
issues.
Chinatown and its residents have successively and success-
their
of
some
achieving
-
power
more
gained
fully
are
being
objectives.
The
they
out
went
company
workers,
with
status
as well
after
notice
suddenly
in
Sportswear
Chinatown
that
December
1985.
for
four
time
of
months
The
the
of
They compared their
their retraining.
Colonial
Meat
Company
employees,
received assistance within two weeks of that plant closing.
the
as
strong, about 200 Chinese, demanded that the
funds
that
without
of business
over 300
state release
off
laid
were
employees
and
P&L
agencies.
government
from
retraining
confidence
spurred other garment workers to
the garment center project has
demand
are
with Tufts
by the negotiations
recognition created
and
heard
rally,
their organizing
without
the P&L
They
assistance.
state
workers
had
organized,
who
At
gone
got
publicity on their own, and succeeded in their demands.
Other
community groups,
Association,
Workers
jobs -
the
Committee,
Asian
are
including
American
in
the
the Chinese Progressive
Resource
process
of
Workshop
documenting
and
the
garment
not only the working conditions but the future viability
-29-
assess
the
community
the
direction
and
employer of Chinatown residents)
(another large
community has
The
alternatives.
other employment
seeking
community
looking at improving jobs in the
economic development projects,
service sector
in
take
should
seek to
projects
Additional
as well.
industry
this
in
of lobs
learned from the failure of the Garment Center to save garment
The
jobs.
industry
now want
residents
for
retraining
better
more modern and secure jobs.
Previously ignored by the city and essentially politically
powerless,
the
leadership
is
for
to
begun
to
become
organized,
and
the
residents
are
emerging,
slowly
ways
new
has
community
help
for
development
community
economic
Army Base
Development,
"community
there
While
themselves.
looking
was
truly
the
from
Chinatown
no
Boston
from
did result
development"
new
it.
LESSONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNERS
VI.
At
lacked
the
time
of
argued
a
key
to
contributed
the
community
Chinatown
and
role,
lack
this
ineffectiveness of
with EDIC and
the
that
city
this
was
not
of
the
they may
a
viable
project.
or reliable
Community
the
play
the
Had community groups been more experienced,
project.
solution
project
BAB
to
experienced
the
experience may have
have
the
groups
because
city.
They
it
saw
was
felt
the
they
the
BAB
only
had
-30-
development
solution
no
choice
as
really
but
the
put
to
"best"
forth
support
by
the
with
project
many
in
work
was
There
before.
for
Chinatown
some
years,
concern
most of
Also,
within.
to travel
dangerous
South
viewed
workers
walked
a
ridden
never
had
would
workers
the
that
the
to
and
racist
as
known
historically
community
a
language
and
the move
from
arise
the
about
racial
about
concerned
good
a
Nonetheless,
reservations
expressed
feared would
they
that
barriers
Boston,
were
help.27
would
community
the
They
project.
to
in
people
it
"hope"
the
bus
follow
not
their jobs to the Army Base in South Boston. 2 8
of
Reservations
that
"flags"
a
about
intentions.
that
the
thing"
make
the
Chinatown
be
or
of
we
as
serve
to
responsive
is
being
too
not
trusting
of
prima
will
for us.
the
often
accept,
agencies
of
cautious
obvious,
best
accepted
community
be
seem
must
federal
know what
should
they
mistake
state
for us or
immediately
may not
may
this
communities,
city,
should
project
development
a
As
agencies.
kind
a
if community residents are uncomfortable or
While
communities
or
program
community's needs.
unclear
this
"do
the
times
public
facie,
right
In this case,
project
on
its
the
value,
face
believing that EDIC and the city were doing the project for the
good
of
their
community
and that
kind
this
of
development
was
what Chinatown needed.
Looking at what happened
that
communities
moving,
examine
highly
the
especially
need
touted
data
to
(or failed to happen),
be
skeptically
developments.
and
when millions
the
critical
We
rationales
of dollars
-31-
must
ask
used
for
are being
we can see
of
fast
questions,
projects,
sought based on
JDAG application or
example, no one from Chinatown read the BAB
This was likely due to the community's inexperience
Agreement.
and
development.
Chinatown
seek
technical
should
if
planners)
they
(an
assistance
yet have
of
situations
for
role
important
to complete
capability
the
kind
this
similar
in
and communities
do not
of
processes
the
about
knowledqe
of
lack
For
prepared.
be
this, we must
do
To
about us.
assumptions
analyses on their own.
It
must
by
is
allow ourselves
external
forces
Being
seem.
back,
not
EDIC
stressed
and
was
UDAG
and
be
In the
signal
and
meet
public
(into
how
that
developing
BAB,
enlisting
and
the
that
realize
formidable
they
we
pull
should
city and
conducting
the
an
support
politicians.
eviction
we
development)
case of Chinatown, the
of
There was
other
rushed
officials
to
to
matter
a
campaign
only
garment companies.
no
can
powerful
not
communities
factors,
urgency
publicity
impressive
for
or
forward.
the
all
to be pushed or
pressured
go
intensive
surgency
for
important
deadlines
of
The
of
the
also a rush to meet the deadlines
money
(CDBG,
etc.),
precious
and
difficult funds to obtain in current time of limited resources.
Facing
the
community
city's
fast
paced
leaders,
not
presented
bandwagon
with
approach,
any
Chinatown.
alternative
to
the
BAB, endorsed the project.
Another
Boston
redevelopment
heed
money
these
will
of
their
lessons.
be
community,
Dudley,
neighborhood.
City,
involved
in
state,
the
-32-
federal
will
They
soon
would
agencies
development.
What
face
do
the
well
and
to
their
happens
in
physical
will
corridor
whole
that
can be
This
community.
economy
local
and
look
shape
a
not
only
but
the
significant
neighborhood's
the
of
fabric
very
opportunity for
the
change,
one that is not likely to happen again for several decades,
It is important for the Dudley community to take or make
ever.
the
time
to
the
evaluate
carefully
of
ramifications
towards
avoiding
projects,
with
task
important
another
This will
development
Also, when
not confuse
community-based
must
economic
take
place
planners,
community
that mistake.
should
we
for
development.
in
the
work
to
analyzing proposed
growth or
economic
the sake
just for
ineffective or unresponsive development
of getting all of the public money that's available.
be
proposed
Community groups should not be rushed or tricked
developments.
into
if
development
Community economic
area,
and
create
lobs,
housing, and stores primarily for those who live there.
Perhaps, if Chinatown groups had been more experienced and
organized,
they would
not have
misused, however unwittingly, to
CDBG)
for
earmarked
project
that
development.
Always
could
Here
remember
developments,
community
not
that
and
we,
we
the
must
advantage of by developers.
as
only
private
doing a good deal
hoods.
As
firms,
but
their
development
Too
funds
lesson
allow
community
for
are
the
ourselves
often we
realistically
think
public
to
for
a
economic
groups.
consumers
to
be
(UDAG and
purposes
community-based
community,
not
community
obtain public
provide
another
is
allowed
be
of
taken
of developers
entities
are
of the development going on in our neighbor-
consumers, we have the right to a reasonable amount
-33-
We
of warranty by, and accountability of, our public agencies.
can
should
and
in
that occurs
force
to
try
can
we
participation,
community
for
format
a
have
not
does
agency
an
of
process
planning
it appears that the
Even if
our neighborhoods.
development
in
and control
demand participation
inclusion
our
through strategies like publicity campaigns that criticize this
unfairness and by publically opposing a program or projects.
In retrospect, if community planners in Chinatown examined
record today,
the BAB project
was
stop
to
is,
That
term.
A
reliance
that no planning
on
the
planning
community
"crisis",
industry
in
for Chinatown
considered what was best
would have
see
garment
neighborhood's
the
to
approach
Chinatown.
for
there
on
going
they would
the long
service
and
garment
industries and to develop a balanced neighborhood economy.
of
convergence
problems that arose
skills
response
since
than
then
those
to
are
activities,
development
in
ever
Chinatown
Tufts
and
was
a
described
earlier,
other
community
economic
the
of
city
Boston
Army
without
largely
language
(and
As
needs.
exploring
was
with
negotiated
program
The
training.
community
groups
more
needed
is)
were recognized by neighborhood
from this,
It has become increasingly clear that what was
residents.
still
special
the
and
groups,
Asian
different
many
The
help
agencies.
From
a
community
planning
to retain
have
been
and
spent
create
more
so
the
The astounding amount of money
base should have been opposed.
spent
perspective,
few
garment
effectively
-34-
for
industry
education
jobs might
and
job
of
might
one
Although
to
the
and
to
on those problems.
prevent
to
an
strongly supported development from going forward, it
otherwise
the
strengthen
would
residents,
opposition
such
expect
not
to work
of money
similar amounts
for
lobby
Chinatown
of
problems
economic
structural
attention
draw
to
opportunity
an
as
"crisis"
industry
garment
the
used
have
could
planner
savvy
a
program,
that kind
not be used for
funds could
if UDAG
Even
training.
and
assistance
to
funding
meet
feel
we
the programs
implement
for
negotiate
to
position
community's
the needs of our residents.
the
Perhaps
and
money
A
oppose
lesson
for
scattered,
as
other
for
neighborhood
businesses
and
we
can
job training programs.
communities
all
opposition
to
programs
to
is
realize
that
We can use
to
draw
to our needs
attention
and
As a strategy, even if we do not stop a project, we can
by
for
what
we
want
support.
To
do
this,
(facts and
ammunition
support
Chinatown
continually
own
our
was
in
ask
the
demanding
we
a
and
prepared
be
must
price
higher
control
the
We
proposals.
Boston
questions,
shape
for
our
have
the
figures) to opposed a certain project and
Army
and
be
cannot
Base
refuse
to
be
of development
-35-
in
our
as
passive,
Development.
We
must
intimidated
external factors like time and funding limitations.
to
firms
garment
the
a development or any other kind of program.
wants.
to
and
unprotected
developing
energy
designing appropriate
aim
keep
to
try
as possible, while devoting more of the community's time,
long
our
would
even
Chinatown,
in
located
planner
by
If we want
neighborhoods,
we
must demand participation and power in the process, even if it
funding
or
that
for us,
or they "appear" to be doing a good job.
What
happened
communities.
may have
planning
the
of
Most
seen the
in
these
is
case
this
lessons
same mistakes
or
instructive
no means
are by
lessons
time
and
as
times change they can be disguised in unfamiliar
is
important
and
to
make
in
the
these
forefront of our minds,
lessons
an
process.
-36-
integral
no
"have
agencies
appears
part
for
all
new.
We
again,
forms.
to look
of
room"
our
but
It
for them,
planning
TABLE I:
INDUSTRIAL CENTER TENANTS
Companies
Number
of Jobs
10
262
Apparel and Textile
6
296
Furniture and Fixture
3
25
Graphic Arts
2
26
Computer/Data Processing
1
13
Mail Service
2
105
Electronics
1
3
Wholesale Hardware
1
38
Food Products
1
8
Office Supplies
1
13
Medical Instrument Manuff.
1
43
Sheltered Workshop
1
13
Number of
Company Type
Printing
Employment as of June 1986
Total
824
Black
56
(7%)
Hispanic
24
(3%)
Other Minority
83
(10%)
163
(20%)
Boston Res.
South Boston
346
72
Low Income
617
Female
375
Source:
EDIC, January 1987
FOOTNOTES
1.
Interview with Regina Lee,
Chinatown Housing
member,
Chinatown Community Leader and
December
and Land Task Force,
1986.
2.
of
the GSA described the devastating effects
to
Letters
Chinatown
the
to
industry
garment
of
the
loss
the
of Chinese
number
on the
statistics
cited
community,
workers employed by the garment industry (70% of Chinese
women), and warned by massive unemployment they could face
if garment jobs were not saved.
3.
Marilyn
Background interviews with Regina Lee of CHLTF,
Swartz Lloyd of EDIC, Karen Malfy of HUD, undated.
4.
The results of the survey are contained in the
case study, which is Appendix I of this paper.
5.
See Appendix IT
6.
about
In
the previous case study questions were raised
in
acquiring and redeveloping the
EDIC's prior
interest
the
timing and
is that
BAB.
What has become clear
chronology
of events
is
key.
When the need
for the
garment
center
arose,
the
site
was
due
to
become
available.
EDIC wanted to purchase the building,
but
everything
"fit
together"
at
that
time
could
be
coincidental.
7.
"The
Frayed
previous
for list of locations and scenarios.
Garment
Industry"
Boston
Globe,
September
3,
1982.
8.
Interview with Doug Herberich,
EDIC, December 4, 1986.
9.
Keeping with the spirit
of the UDAG Agreement,
EDIC does
have hiring goals beyond its initial requirement.
It aims
to lease space in BAB to firms whose employee make-up is
50% Boston residents, 25% minority, 25% women, and 80% low
to moderate income persons.
10.
Melvin Wayne La Prade, "Towards A Comprehensive Evaluation
Framework:
Issues
in
Evaluating
the Urban Development
Action Grant Program",
Cleveland State University,
1986,
P. 1.
11.
Ibid., Appendix A.
12.
Ibid., Appendix B.
Director
of
Development,
13.
Corporation,
Boston
Economic Development and Industrial
Army Base Urban Development Action Grant Application, July
1982.
Housing
and
Urban
14.
Department of
Boston Area Office, U.S.
Development, staff memos, August 1982.
15.
provision was seen by some as
The attempt to include this
was unlikely
since it
a political/appeasement strategy,
know this
did
not
staff
legal
or
its
city
council
the
that
was illegal.
16.
U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
Grant No.
of Action Grants,
Boston Army Base Agreement,
B-82-AA-25-0108, July 1983.
17.
and
Karen
Malfy1,
Community
Planning
Interview
with
Development Division, Boston Area HUD Office, December 1,
1986.
18.
Boston Area Office, op. cit.
19.
Interview with Karen Malfy, December 1,
20.
Ibid.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Undated
interviews
with
Regina
Lee,
Tunney
staff).
(BRA
Matheson
Carol
planner), and
25.
Chinatown
Interview with David Eliot,
Training Center, December 1986.
26.
Background interview with Regina Lee.
27.
Ibid.
28.
EDIC did retain
interpreters
to help the transition
go
more smoothly, and a new bus route was implemented by the
MBTA that
made commuting relatively
easy.
These actions
are laudable, but in the end Chinatown residents obviously
did not have much opportunity to utilize these services.
1986.
Lee
Occupational
(city
and
BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES
Economic Development And Industrial Corporation, Boston Army
Base Urban Development Action Grant Application, July
1982.
EDIC News,
Winter,
1982.
"The Frayed Garment Industry" Boston. Globe, September, 3,
1982.
LaPrade, Melvin Wayne, "Towards A Comprehensive Evaluation
the Urban Development
in
Evaluating
Issues
Framework:
State
Cleveland
Thesis,
M.S.
Grant
Program",
Action
University, 1986.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Action Grants, UDAG Grant Agreement, No. B-82-AA-25-0108,
July 1983.
Office of Inspector General, Audit Report, March 1985.
Boston Area Office, Region 1, Boston Army Base
memos, August 1982 - September 1986.
file staff
INTERVIEWS
Doug
Herberich,
Director
of
Development,
EDIC,
December
4,
1986.
Tarry Hum, staff,
November, 1986.
Regina
also,
Chinatown
Housing
and
Land
Task
Force,
Chinatown Housing and Land Task Force;
member,
Lee,
of
series
leader,
and
activist
community
Chinatown
interviews, 1983-1986.
city planner
Lee,
Tunnev
interview and discussions.
and
Professor
at
MIT.
Undated
Marilyn Swartz Lloyd, Executive Director, EDIC, 1983.
and
Planning
Community
staff,
Malfy,
Karen
Division, Boston Area Office, HUD, December 1986.
Carol Matheson, staff, BRA, 1983
Development
APPENDTX
I
BOSTON ARMY BASE PROJECT FINAL REPORT
May 11,
1983
Sheri Adlin
Nancyellen Hayes
Karen Margolis
Marcia Sigal
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May 11,
1983
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This
through
a
case
project
Industrial
in
study
examines
undertaken
Boston
Corporation
created by
by
(EDIC).
the
implement
neighborhood
targeting
private/public
industries
community
the
and
Economic
EDIC
Mayor's
economic
is
a
investments
Development
quasi-public
office,
community
development
whose
economic
and
mandate
and
agency
is
to
development
by
attracting
specific
into depressed areas of the city.
This report evaluates EDIC's attempt to save the Chinatown
garment
The
industry and its
vast
majority
dependent
of
upon
Tufts'
of
these
New
jobs,
vital to the Chinatown economy.
working
garment
England
Chinese
jobs.
Medical
women
With
Center
the
in
Chinatown
recent
into
(TNEMC)
are
expansion
Boston's
traditional garment district, the industry has been threatened.
EDIC reached to the potential
an
alternative
Base was
site
chosen
as
loss of the industry by seeking
for
these garment
the
most
suitable
firms.
The
location.
Boston Army
There
is
no
clear evidence that EDIC assessed other viable options beyond
relocation,
which
may
have
better
addressed
garment
industry
needs.
To understand the context of this redevelopment effort, we
begin with an analysis of the historical evolution of Boston's
Chinatown,
its
neighborhood.
garment
residents,
and
its
status
as
a
Boston
urban
We then examine national and local trends of the
industry,
to
changing environment.
understand
the
constraints
within
its
Next we introduce the participants and
Financing Community Economic Development
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
explain
their
respective
description of
for
follows,
the
an
site
roles
in
the
and it's present
understanding
of
May 11,
project.
and
A
1983
brief
anticipated
development
trends
uses
in
the
area.
We then turn to the financial deal;
what the sources were,
how it was put together, and why it works.
aspects of the deal
thought
choice
out,
to
it
meet
is
the
While the financial
for the Boston Army Base may have been well
still
garment
unclear
whether
industry's
it
needs.
was
We
the
right
conduct
an
analysis of this vital question and whether or not this was in
fact community economic development.
Financing Community Economic Development
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
May 11,
1983
Page
I.
Introduction
1
II.
Boston Chinatown
2
III.
Garment Industry
6
IV.
Players
9
V.
Site
13
VI.
Financial Deal
15
VII. Analysis
Bibliography
Interviews
Appendix A
Appendix B
Exhibits
Financing Community Economic Development
31
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
I.
May 11,
1983
Introduction
This report is the product of a 3 month investigation
the
redevelopment
community
economic
Industrial
of
the
development.
Corporation
agencies
in
industrial
Boston
jobs
Boston
The
(EDIC),
was
Army
Base
Economic
one
of
established
and create
as
new ones,
a
form
Development
three
to
a
of
and
development
retain
through
into
existing
combination
of
development planning and financial assistance or incentives for
the benefit of Boston neighborhoods.
This
through
study
the development
authority,
local
analyzes
EDIC works
financial
EDIC's
of the
Boston
closely
institutions
attempt
with
in
estate
development
Industrial
(Boston
and
Parks),
other
Technical).
The
to
meet
its
Base.
mandate,
As
public
a
public
agencies
target
their
and
efforts
Their programs include real
management
financial
Army
order
to neighborhood based industries.
to
(Cross
assistance,
agency's
Town
and
and
job
stated
Marine
training
(and
highly
publicized) objective in this project has been to save jobs for
Chinese
workers
by keeping displaced
Chinatown
near Chinatown, or at least in Boston.
While
garment
firms
their objective
is consistent with their purpose, it remains to be seen whether
or
not
this
particular
development
project
holds
true
to
community economic development.
To
provide
a
framework
for
analysis,
pertinent
characteristics of Chinatown, the garment industry, and the
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
1
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
events
the
description of
and
site,
1983
The ensuring chain
current problem at hand will be presented.
of
May 11,
and
players,
financing
of the development project provides the context for an analysis
of the appropriateness
of this
project to
address that problem
and community economic development in Chinatown.
II.
Boston Chinatown
Boston's Chinatown, now America's fourth largest, followed
a development pattern similar to the Chinatowns throughout the
country.
Its
provinces
surrounding
their
residents
families
in
discrimination
were
almost
Canton,
who
China.
and
exclusively
intended
on
Throughout America
violent
racism,
Other
laws
still
others
prevented
their
restricted
families
their
from
the
to
they met blatant
from
by
the
1870
citizenship.
joining
freedom.
from
returning
exemplified
Nationalization Act, which excluded Chinese
men
and
them,
Prejudice,
extreme
differences in culture, language barriers and a different value
system drew
the Chinese
immigrants
in
each American
city
into
tight, insular communities.
Drastic
allowed
changes
thousands
of
in
immigration
Chinese
to
laws
come
after
to
World
War
America.
These
immigrants differed dramatically from their predecessors.
were
U.S.
families
from throughout China
New immigrants
300 a year.
continue
intent
on
II
They
staying in
to come to Boston at a rate
the
of
While Chinatown is their first home, their average
length of residence is only ten years.
Although most would
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 2
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
like
to
remain
1835-1850
has
in Chinatown, the housing
undergone
continuous
There are now only 996
70%
of
5,000
it
is
deteriorated.
live
in
Chinatown,
of
the
Chinese
is
community.
1983
built between
use,
with
little
housing units, with over
Boston's
15,000
Chinese
though many return each day
Chinatown
shop and visit.
Of
stock,
intensive
reinvestment.
May 11,
only
to work,
the cultural and business center
Afterall,
80
percent
of
Boston's
Chinese residents are foreign born.
upwardly mobile
The
the
Fenway, or the
living
in
40%
to
Allston-Brighton,
over-crowded
housing,
unable
to
find
In 1978 Chinatown's unemployment rate was 16%, and
its underemployment
and
moving
leave behind friends and relatives
suburbs,
sub-standard,
good jobs.
Chinese,
of
the
rate was
man
fluent
70%, with only 23%
in
English.
The
of
the women
restaurant
garment industries employ over 75% of the workforce.
and
With both
husbands and wives working long hours, the gross median family
income
in
1978
was
only
$6,000
(the
lowest
of
any
Boston
neighborhood).
In
spite
economically
of
self
low
paying
jobs
sufficient,
until
but
restaurants the market is saturated.
cannot
be
underestimated
since
all
1970
with
Chinatown
200
Boston
was
area
The significance of this
but
$3,416,000
of
the
$18,512,000 gross income of Chinatown businesses' annual income
in the mid 1970's was related to restaurants.
This is coupled
with the national decline of the garment industry.
Chinatown's
growth sector industries, health, construction, and electronics
do not hire Chinese workers.
In 1978, only 60 to 70 Chinese
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 3
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
were
employed
in
electronics,
they comprised only 2%
60
to
70
in
May 11,
construction,
1983
and
of the Tufts New England Medical Center
workforce.
Much of Chinatown's overcrowding is due to the building of
the
Southeast
1960's,
Expressway
the
Mass
Pike
Extension
in
the
the expansion of Tufts New England Medical Center.
and
These
developments
Today
the
Center,
and
took
continued
the
half
of
Chinatown's
development
renewal
of
the
of
Tufts
Theatre
land
New
and
housing.
England
District,
Medical
South
Station
redevelopment, construction of Lafayette Place, Park Plaza, the
U.S.
Department of Transportation complex, and multiple
office
buildings are causing land values to skyrocket, making crucial
housing
development
benefits
from
Although
this
Chinatown's
completed.
these
go
growth
to
while
the
brought
few
Chinese
projects
or
Chinese
new
were
to
few
community.
customers
hired
work
direct
in
in
them
to
the
once
Language and racism are still the primary barriers
Chinese
Chinatown
massive
of
impossible,
development
restaurants,
construction
for
this
almost
getting
by
good
incompatible
jobs
and
and
this
competing
encirclement
land
uses
of
threatens
it's survival.
Both the City and the State have historically ignored the
needs
of
Chinatown's
several
Chinatown.
residents
conflicting
Chinatown.
This
are
could
be
registered
community groups,
because
voters.
only
There
20%
are
of
also
each trying to speak for
A rally held on May 2, 1983, to express opposition
to Tuft's continued expansion, is a good example of this split
Financing Community Economic Development
P age 4
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
in
leadership.
(CEDC),
The
Chinese
Economic
May 11,
Development
1983
Council
the agency responsible for Chinatown community economic
development,
was
very obviously
the organizing effort.
not
present,
nor
a
member
of
The Chinese Benevolant Association, the
Merchant's Association, CEDC, and the Chinatown Task Force each
have
different
visions
for
Chinatown
and
different
expoused
strategies.
Few
reach
government,
A
Chinatown.
Collins,
giving
developers was
social
1963
the
service,
"letter
of
community
before
innumerable
occasions, Chinese
of
at worst
Tufts
job
veto
implementing
blatant
dollars
power
from Mayor
over
outside
forced to consult the
development
plans.
On
community members protested
support,
expansion and other
training
understanding"
ignored and Tufts was not
community
City's,
or
and
at best quiet
development
projects
in
the
tolerance
spite
of
their negative effects on Chinatown.
The
City
took
a
new role
in
1981,
with the
BRA
and
then
EDIC leading the attempt to save the Chinatown garment industry
and its
The
600-2000*
garment
1960's
firms
but
at
15
jobs,
industry
Tufts
25-50 percent* held by Chinese women.
had
steadily
threatened
and 35
declined
eviction
Kneeland Street,
of
a
since
large
brought the
the
early
number*
issue
of
to the
public's attention and precipitated the City's involvement.(1)
(1) *
Several sources report different numbers.
for explanatory chart.
Financing Community Economic Development
See Appendix A
Page 5
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
III.
May 11,
1983
Garment Industry
The garment industry is America's only major manufacturing
industry
to
escape
concentration,
and
the
automation,
non-entrepreneurial
many
economic
ways,
nineteenth
primarily
the
industry
and
its
that
technology,
management
garment
century,
costly
forces
in
labor
limited
other
has
not
lead
entry,
industries.
changed
force
In
since
continues
immigrant women, though the Jewish
to
the
to
be
immigrants of the
early 1900's have been replaced by Chinese and Hispanic women.
Although there was an increase of large
automated
1970's,
primarily
the
small,
industry
highly
continues
labor-intensive,
to
be
competitive,
firms in
made
volatile
the
up
of
firms,
averaging 20 to 50 workers, with limited economies of scale and
producing for local and regional markets.
The nature of the industry is due to the transitory nature
of
fashion
styles
and
constant
seasonal
large scale production impossible.
changes
which
make
Market instability keeps a
narrow ceiling on firm size and necessitates a large, flexible,
labor force.
firms
depend
buyers,
need
and
Producing in response to sudden shifts in demand,
on
constant
competitors.
for quick access
delivery
to
Printing
is
markets,
the
only
to
communication
This
requires
supplies and
anchor
the
American
between
agglomeration.
cheap
industry
industry
suppliers,
labor,
in
that
urban
has
The
and rapid
centers.
remained
predominantly in urban centers.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
6
One
by
the
out of
garment
awareness
American
firms
The
of
POSTON APMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May
11,
eight
are
employed
and
the
economy
and
a
average
U.S. manufacturing
textile
industries.
significance
of
the
is
due
to
probably
workforce
paycheck
primarily
of
a
workers
The
garment
the
worker
that of all other manufacturing employees,
that
the required
skill
for a
The
stitcher
general
in
size
the
of
of
immiqrant
is
50
most
women.
percent
below
in spite of the fact
are
U.S.
average
of
industry
small
comprised
garment
lack
1983
comparable
to other
manufacturing
jobs.
wage is $4.35
per hour compared to $7.22 per hour in Sweden.
The
(700%
large
between
caused
a
increase
1961-1972)
major
decline
was the
first U.S.
and
American
by
overseas
in
increased
their
other
of
imported
and
in
the
the
manufacturers,
search
lost
stagflation
of
cheap
technology
between
organizing a massive
who
industry.
to maximize
1970
and
their
their
1970's
economy
fact,
it
operations
some
firms
productivity
looking for
1980.
the
hourlv
foreign imports
Although
In fact,
the
In
moved
labor.
southeast,
in
of
industry to be threatened by
firms moved to the
were
worker's
clothing
garment
many firms were forced to close.
jobs
garment
and
cheaper labor,
200,000 U.S. garment
The
ILGWU
is currently
lobbying effort to get Congress
to reduce
import quotas from 40 to 25 percent, which they believe is the
only way to save the industry in the long run.
The
1860's.
labor
the
and
garment
Until
the
industry
recently,
closeness
industry in the area.
came
the
to
the
to
Boston's
availability
downtown
Most firms were
Financing Community Economic Development
South
of
retail
Cove
cheap
in
the
Chinese
district
kept
located on Kneeland
Page
7
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
and
Essex
Streets,
the heart
of Chinatown.
May 11,
Recent
1983
evictions,
threats of evictions, or rent increases have caused many owners
to
seek alternative locations.
the
district's
residents
growth
and
to
added
housing
stock.
Some
of
garment
firms
the
in
It
is
interesting to note that
the
1940's
the
substantial
Chinatown
causing
and
leaders
the
1950's
displaced many
loss
of
now fear
loss
of
Chinatown's
that
hundreds
the
of
loss
jobs*
threatens the economic foundation of Chinatown.
Even
largest
though
the
garment
manufacturing
small
industry
remains
(printing
is
employer
compared to other garment centers,
City and San Francisco.
less
than
Both Fall
1/4
of
River
the
Boston's
the
second
first),
it
is
particularly New York
Boston's eight thousand* employees are
36,000
Massachusetts
and New Bedford
have
garment
relatively
workforce.
large
garment
centers, dominated by a few large firms.
Although
52
to
185
most of
a
Boston
firms*,
the work
sportswear
"College
the
each
is
employing
contracted
company
Town's"
industry
whose
clothes
are
is
made
an
average
by one
main
of
company,
office
targeted
looking for moderate priced items.
up of
approximately
forty
"College
is
to
workers,
in
Town",
Braintree.
middleclass
women
This market is particularly
import sensitive.
The
survival
of
Boston's
linked to "College Town".
large
is
a
firms's
shorter
like
lead
garment
is
obviously
Two of the factors that have enabled
"College Town"
time
industry
to
compete
(foreign companies
with the
require
imports
six months)
and the ability to make special arrangements with textile
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
8
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
firms.
Boston's
overall
advantage
May 11,
is
the
1983
continued
availability of an immigrant female labor force.
The Boston garment
industry followed the
national pattern
of large numbers of firm closing between 1969 and 1979 followed
by
an
apparent
jobs
either
Some
of
closed
or
Chinatown's
(particularly
rents,
stabilization.
East
inability
evictions.
of Tufts
moved
firms
in
find
Confronted
from
the
firms
Boston
moved
Boston)
to
148
to
late
additional
in
1981
evicting the firms
this
other
parts
1970' s
due to
the
and
city acting through EDIC decided to
during
space
with
in 15
representing
35
for
4,000
period.
of
Boston
increased
expansion,
or
immediate
possibility
Kneeland
Street, the
attempt to find a solution
that would keep these firms in Boston and as close to Chinatown
as possible.
IV.
Players
The
following
development
firms,
of
local
agencies
the
Boston
ILGWU,
or
Army
State
groups
Base:
Street
the
Benevelent
Association,
Development Council, and
Our
purpose
project
here
while
is
to
providing
a
BRA,
and Shawmut
Housing and Land Development Task Force
Chinese
played
role
EDIC,
banks,
the
garment
Chinatown
(Task Force),
the
in
Chinese
HUD, the
Economic
the Tufts New England Medical Center.
focus
a
on
brief
the
major
description
players
of
some
in
the
others
involved.
EDIC,
the Economic Development and Industrial Corporation,
is the main actor and leader in this development of the Army
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 9
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
Base.
As
a
public
agencies
target
their
combining
public
revenue
local
financial
and
bonds
a
to
estate
Park)
established
EDIC
efforts
real
Industrial
authority,
and
funds) ,
federal
based
and
in
and
track record thus
other
order
training,
By
loans,
EDIC
far.
to
(Cross Town
(leveraging
job
1983
industries.
management
assistance
financial
with
closely
institutions
neighborhood
development
successful
works
May 11,
In
has
developing
the Boston Army Base, EDIC felt they were serving their purpose
They responded to what they thought was
or mission.
community need -
an urgent
keeping the garment firms in Boston.
The loss
of garment firms would mean many Chinatown residents would lose
their primary source of employment.
In 1981,
garment firms and other agencies requested EDIC's
assistance in dealing with the Tufts Medical Center expansion,
which would
cause displacement and
EDIC
firms.
Relocation
worked
Association,
community reps,
to
negotiate
has
become
EDIC
has
closely
an
with
financial hardship to many
GIRA,
the
organization
Garment
comprised
and banking and union officials.
with Tufts
known
secured
as
the
on behalf
the
of
Boston Army
funding
for
the
Industry
of
firms,
EDIC helped
What
firms.
Base project,
the acquisition,
ensued
for which
rehab,
and
long term financing.
EDIC's
first
involvement
was
to
persuade Tufts to extend their leases.
coordinate
attempts
to
Once Tufts agreed to an
extension until July 31, 1983, EDIC coordinated the development
of a relocation plan.
EDIC,
In the
fall of 1981,
at
the reque'st of
the Garment Industry Relocation Association
Financing Community Economic Development
(GIRA), made
Page 10
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
up of
Task
representatives
the
Force
of
and
BRA)
of
others,
Urban
identification
analysis;
federal
3)
industry
Bob
neqotiating
Together
several
needs.
hired
the
sites
to
2)
Of
with
the
and
EDIC,
and
firms
base.
footage required was
feet.
in
in
the
1)
BRA
site
and
surveyed
16
site;
Kenny
garment
companies
earlier
The
estimated to be 400,000
of
feasibility
surveved,
30
interest
director
city/state/and
the
Base
expressed
the
them
Tufts
expressed interest in the Boston Army
firms
industry,
financial
relocation
47
1983
(formerly
assist
with
for
garment
Kenny
relocation;
agencies.
considered
TLGWU,
Consulting
for
and
the
May 11,
25
to
total
square
to 600,000
square
The site was narrowed to Building 114 of the Boston Army
Base, although the criteria used in the decision making process
is not clear.
to purchase
EDIC then announced that
Building
114
to
serve
as
the city would
the
site
attempt
of Boston's
new
garment center.
In
leaders
the
past,
the
of
the
Chinese
supporting
adverse
effects
threatened
England
Tufts
firms
Medical
their
leases
BRA's
changed
and
BRA
had
been
comnunity,
development,
on
evictions,
Center,
not
to
and
who
in
Chinatown.
After
helped
the
pattern of action
criticized
perceived
spite
the BRA
raise
sharply
of
being
its
the
by
the
BRA
as
substantial
apprised
of
the
negotiated with Tufts New
persuade
rents.
is not
The
them
to
cause
extend
for
the
clear though orders mav
have come from the Mayor's office.
Representatives
organizers
from
in this project.
the
ILGWU
see
themselves
as
Previously, there had been no
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
11
POSTON ARMY BASE
unity
qarment
amongst
jobs,
members'
the
knew
In
Congressman
involved
when
Brian
reanested
their
assistance
They
site.
the
helped
Department
site
of
lobbied
for
the
federal
study.
the
In
site
Industry
of
the
felt
State
pursue
they
When
proceed.
Street
market
became
of
Boston
plannina
EDIC,
Army
Base
grant
from
feasibility
government
building
Shawmut
and
officials
from the
the
budget
needed
project
to
Boston
the
GSA,
and
that
further,
Base
Marilyn
more
Their
First
pro-forma
represented
various
Army
location,
pro-forma
later
were
Association.
and
on
the
on
the
facility
summer,
State
following
garment
firms.
chosen
as
Bank
Llovd,
of
project.
before
was
the
was
EDIC,
First
thev
could
brought
to
agreed
to
Street
a
the
in
was
Swartz
on
interests
National
information
Shawmut was brought into the deal
Financing
as
Tsonqas
the
these
the
lenders
Dacey
the
Bank
the
and
industry
Brian
by
as
after
proposed
National
Bank
Relocation
1982,
for
a
of
a
thev acted
influence to help EDIC obtain its UDAG and
were
approached
with
conduct
an
director
P75,000
Later
acquisition
National
association
June
a
initiate
financing for the project.
First
Garment
obtain
to
Senator
obtaining
unior
firms, and workers.
the
executive
in
Defense
used their political
other
Dacev,
EDIC
development
and
Moaklev
save
to
had
Many times,
coordinators and a liason between EDIC,
Both
to
198,3
11,
Mav
order
they
that
in Boston.
firms
to keep the
effort
owners.
firm
Union
VTNTAL IREPORT
cursory
review.
in late September.
Community Economic Development
Paae 12
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
V.
May 11,
1983
Site
Historically,
been
uneven.
emanating
It
from
the
growth
has
occured
central
of
points
Boston's
in
economic
specific
within
the
base
clustered
city
has
areas,
proper.
The
Prudential Center, City Hall Plaza and the new Federal Reserve
Building have
been
stepping stones
the underutilized and vacant areas
for
development.
of space
surrounding these
points have been captured by developers yet gaps
to be filled.
Much of
still remain
With the recent construction of the new Federal
Reserve
Building,
towards
the Southeast sector of the Waterfront,
development
trends
in
Boston
are
heading
tightening up
the area between the North Atlantic and Summer Street bridges.
Projects
underway
of
the
include
that
area,
EDIC's Marine
Boston Army Base
piers,
bridge
for
(Boscom),
and
projects
sea
and
road
to
planned,
Industrial
its
Commonwealth
access
either
Park,
container
Pier,
a
proposed
redevelopment
points,
new
Massport's
Northern
Logan Airport.
or
If
Avenue
development
succeed as planned, then the location of EDIC's Army
base project
and
increasingly
desirable
the
surrounding
to
assembled
developers,
land,
will
become
and
future
merchants,
residents.
The
Boston
buildings,
Army
Buildings
smaller of the
three,
Base
113,
is
114,
comprised
of
and
Building
119.
and housed Army
the
three
113
major
is
the
administrative offices.
The U.S. Army used Building 114 as a training site,
and for a
computer and storage facility, but phased out most of its
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
13
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
operations on the base about
seven years
ago.
May 11,
1983
Currently,
some
of their computer facilities are housed in the building and two
private
manufacturers
companies
million
rent
space
square
feet.
-
Personnel
in
the
and
Breckenridge
building.
Building
119,
Building
or
666
sportswear
114
Summer
has
1.6
Street,
is
actually owned by the Navy, but because it is on the Army base,
the Army
is
119
local
is the
leased
major
Currently Building
caretaker of the Building.
to
Massport,
supermarket
who
chains
in
for
leases
turn
the
warehousing
their
space
to
incoming
goods.
The
city
offering
(SAG).
site
has
Boston
as
recently
the
submitted
homeport
for
a
proposal
the
to
Surface
the
Action
Navy,
Group
Under the proposal, the Navy's building on the 31 acre
would be
rennovated and
group of warships.
used
to berth
and
accomodate
the
The SAG consists of five vessels, including
the battleship USS Iowa, a guided missile cruiser, a destroyer,
and
two guided missile destroyers.
by
EDIC,
the
Greater
Massport Authority.
jobs,
Boston
The proposal was
Chamber
of
increase civilian and military payroll
$143
new ship
related contracts.
Sections
A,
E,
million dollars,
and
in
the
F in
Building
the
city many
It would also attract tenants
Building
119
in the area by a
and would bring
114,
the
EDIC has said they currently have no plans.
housed
and
This project would create thousands of new
total of
now
Commerce,
sponsored
would
have
sections
for
for which
The food companies
to
move,
possibly
becoming tenants at Building 114.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
14
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
Although
New
York
competing for the
and
site,
it appears
best resource to the Navy.
the
largest
linear
the
feet
drydock
of
vessels
in
pier
in
any
-
more
SAG.
on
the
to
the
the
city
could
alternating
harbor of
accept
operate
Boston
is
a
proposed
and
port
and
country.
was
Northern
Also
recently
"Homeport
on
a
importance
by
all
of
are
level.
Boston",
timeshare
If
then
basis,
vessels.
The
makes
Boston Army
the
natural
It is closer to the major sea
European parts
occupied
5,450
facilities
commercial
another factor that
of major
also
is
to berth
the
commerical
Base site appealing to the Navy.
lanes
are
There
than enough
strictly
the
between Navy
seaport.
Presently,
operating
were
Island
that Boston could offer the
eastern
underutilized,
Navy
Rhode
1983
Buildings 114 and 119 are housed on
space
the
Newport,
May 11,
the
than
is
Navy
any
the
other
fact
(1974)
city
that
and
in
the
can
the
base
now
be
renovated without exhorbitant cost.
VI.
Financial Deal
The
of
the
financial
Boston
package
Army
Base
for the purchase
was
and redevelopment
orchestrated
by
Development and Industrial Corporation of Boston
an
innovative
package
of
both
public
and
the
Economic
(EDIC).
private
It is
funds.
Included in the deal are four major sources of funds, a $3.644
million
$5.950
Urban
Development Action
Industrial
Revenue
Bond,
Grant
(UDAG)
$.427
million
loan
in
from HUD,
EDIC
a
equity
including Neighborhood Development Funds and a Community
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 15
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May 11,
1983
Development Block Grant, and $3 million in syndication equity.
The deal has changed many times, taking a number of forms.
The
major
components
banks
included
Grant
loan
a
from
of
the
proposed
HUD,
$1.2
first
$4
package
brought
million Urban
to
$1.4
before
Development
million
in
equity
the
Action
from
the
Massachusetts Government Land Bank, private outside syndication
of
$2.5
million
and
a
tax
exempt
Industrial
Revenue
Bond
of
$4.5 million.
The
UDAG
loan
application
for
funds
Base was
contingent on the retention of
creation
of
new
ramifications
consider
Army
jobs,
to
the
Boston's
Base
was
Administration
the
million.
GSA
EDIC
Chinese
reached
(GSA).
with
EDIC's
Debois and
appraised
of
community.
until
the
a
the
the
Boston
the
HUD
sales
U.S.
at
not
agreement
appraisal
Maddison, was
property
would
General
independent
at
a
the
socioeconomic
$1.5
value
felt pressured to make a deal quickly
of their efforts fall through.
Army
industry and jobs,
consideration
application
property by Minot,
while
and
for
even
on
the
Services
of
the
million,
of
$4.1
lest all
They wanted the financing to be
in place by January of 1983 so they could start renovations and
have the Center ready by the summer of 1983.
It was necessary to have the Center ready at this time
the garment firms in
as
15 and 35 Kneeland Street had a reprieve
from Tufts University's eviction proceedings and rent increases
through June of 1983.
of
those
garment
The UDAG grant contingent on the saving
industry
jobs
and
if
the
UDAG
was
not
allocated in that round, it is doubtful that EDIC could use the
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
16
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAT, RFPORT
of
saving
those
garment
as
lobs
would not be ready in time to
price
for the property
the
deadline,
thev
Still, they were
as
for
the
as
save them.
not
did
building.
needed
iustification
and building was
though
of
The
the
a
good
building
Boston
EDTC met
price
get the TJDAG
the
on
the
in that round
Army
'ase.
UDAG award came lust one week after the negotiated $3.5
Army Base Building 114
1983
final negotiated
$3.5 million.
get
able to
acauisition
May 11,
The
million
sale agreement with the GSA.
The aarment industro project, including rehabilitation was
initially
estimated
engineering
Inc.
The
study
and
$1
sections
C,
been
in
and
million,
feet
for
785,400
square
feet
is
based
Anderson-Nichols
revised
costs,
leasehold
D of
square
not
$14.7
upward,
to
$3.5
improvements
It takes
114
only,
included
in
Sections A,
this
an
Company,
the
higher
This
million and an
by
the
garment
renovations
for
garment/industrial use
on
million.
into account
Building
rentable).
and
given
$17.555
full purchase price of
825,400
are
of
by
other tenants.
B,
Building
cost
improvement
million
industry and
to
had
includes the
estimated
a
prepared
estimate
acquisition
figure
at
total
of
(of which
only
E,
a
and F of the
industrial/garment
center
prolect, and financing for these sections is entirely separate.
Plans
nor
for
these
disclosed
by
sections
EDIC,
have
beyond
not
been officially
calling
it
a
developed,
light
industrial
complex to be developed in the future.
More
$2.2
formal
million
of
Bank
the
estimates
acquisition
of
the project
cost
from
the
cost eliminate
garment
center
prolect and accrue it to the Budget for sections A, E, and F,
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
17
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
the
putting
total
of
cost
including
leasehold
eliminated
from the
the
at
project
budget because State
of
$15.355
Street Bank, the
lead
all
financial
(and the coordinator
of
stipulated that no more than
package)
allowed
acquisition.
for
determining
first
Bank backed
The
$1.3
aspects
million be
this
into
figure
One
then deducting this cost from the total sources of income.
of
the
to
risks
biggest
the
is
bank
the
It was up to
advance.
acquisition
find money to make up the
the allowable
full acquisition cost and
between the
difference
to
in this case,
EDIC
risk.
construction
Funds must be sufficient to complete the project.
the developer, EDIC
by
of construction and
soft costs
hard and
the
million,
was
bank in the deal
this
1983
million
$2.2
This
improvements.
May 11,
a
obtained
$2.2
million
HUD
108
loan, which applied as the acquisition cost for sections A, E,
and
F
only.
Payments
for
the
HUD
108
loan
will
come
from
present tenant leases in those sections.
The major sources of project funding going into the final
closing,
$3.644
which
million
syndication
EDIC
is
Shawmut
UDAG
from DLJ
equity,
purchased
expected
and
a
by Merrill
Banks.
$140,000-planning
loan
Real
and
$300,000
HUD,
Estate,
$3
1983,
$1.7
of
EDIC
State
$420,000-leasing
Development
Block
private
million
in
Bond
Street
equity
$127,000-Neighborhood
Community
in
Revenue
industrial
the
the
include
million
some
backed by
sources
grants.
of
Inc.,
million
Lynch and
Listed
mid-May
from
$5.95
$775,000-administration,
Fund,
in
and
include
overhead,
Development
Grant
(CDBG).
(See Appendix B.)
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
18
BOSTON APMY BASE FINAL REPORT
Part
of
this
$1.7
million
in
EDIC
Mav 11,
1983
which
qoes
equity,
toward some of the soft costs, are in fact nnt true costs to be
charged to the project, and are considered by State Street Bank
as
a
"sweat
either
have
Costs)
or
and
equity"
alreadv
oay
contribution
been
paid
themselves
for
eauitv) .
The
only
contributing,
from
the
for
(they
real
EDIC.
and a
These
(Miscellaneous
are
money
Bank's
Development Fund of $427,000
Grant of $300,000,
by
Development
considered
equity
view,
both
that
a
is
expenses
costs
EDIC
is
Neighborhood
Community Development Block
for a total contribution of $427,000.
State Street Bank's Estimates
for the Total Project Cost and
Total Sources of Funds
(in millions $)
Resources
Ind. Rev. Bonds
UDAG
EDIC Equity
Syndication
Costs
5.950
3.644
.427
3.000
(in millions $)
Acquisition
Hard Const. Costs
Soft Costs
13.021
Missing from the deal
Bank.
1.300
9.378
2.342
13.020
is the Massachusetts Government Land
The Land Bank has historically had a strong relationship
with EDIC.
Yet,
the deal was
restructured in December of
1982
without the Land Bank due to technical reasons, predominantlv a
conflict as
banks.
Merrill
in a
co-participant
The
tax
Lynch
is
exempt
sold to
riskless position.
in the deal,
in
the mortgaqe with the commercial
Industrial
Revenue
individual
Thus,
Bond
purchased
investors who must be
by
left
State Street Bank, the lead bank
and Shawmut Bank, as the participant bank,
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
19
BOSTON ARMY RASE FTNATL PEPORT
(sharing
of
the
Merrill
not
equallv)
Lvnch
meet
Lvnch
risk
for the
the
payments
call
under
can
individual
consumers
amount
the
of
issued
the
the
of
hold
the
first
bonds
of
credit
credit,
Tn return, State
mortcgaqe,
a
position
favor
Merrill
protecting
haRnens,
by
1983
Tf EDIC can
default,
this
paid
in
Bond.
thus
if
is
credit
into
go
the bonds.
of
of
Revenue
letter
Shawmut to Merrill Lvnch.
would
letter
industrial
and
letter
a
Mav 11,
State
the
full
Street
Street
of
the
and
and Shawmut
collateral,
and
would control the real estate.
The
shared
Land
Bank
participant
in
Shawmut Banks
position
control
of
which
$1.4
by
the
conflict
the
the
would
million
propertv.
Commonwealth
and
Legislature regarding
the
potential
question
was
who
would
the
Legislature
banks were opposed
Street
taking
have
depleted
the
and
thev
Yet,
the
is
then
and
State
with
of
that
the
would
mortgage
would
Land
the
be
the
would
to
have
such
initiative,
an
shared
agency
of
in
the
existence.
Bank
there
take
the
It
was
that
partnership.
Land
Given
was
co-participant.
the
and
meant
is
control
Thus,
'ank
a
collateral
debate
future
probably
a
been
Street
Banks'
Bank
Land
have
State
presently
the Land Bank's
assumed
the
they
first
there
elimination
of
that
was
with
forced
out of the deal.
There
were
other
benefits
involvement of the Land Bank.
was
to
be
at
an
was transferred
interest
to
the
rate
the
deal
without
the
The original Land Bank financing
of
Industrial
has quoted the Bond at 10
to
14
percent.
Revenue
1/4 percent
That
Bond.
(though this
Financing Community Economic Development
financing
Merrill
1-vnch
is expected
Page 20
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
to go down even
further to 9.875 or
to financial market conditions),
the project.
Also,
would have had to
bonds
which
thousand.
exposure,
have
gave
Shawmut
amount
credit
for
receive
a
1.5%
is
such,
payments.
to
the
of
project
the
fair
letter
rate
of
of
annum of the
from
outstanding
account;
For
they
receive
this,
for
principal
While
require
the
payments,
at
their
risk
of
a
servicing
the
and
fee
million Industrial Revenue Bond
not
yet
officially
& Poors will
and
and
in
an
letter
of
State
disposing
of close to
interest
4.5%
only
plus
A
at
2% in
11
rating,
five years
10.25
semi-annually.
years
interest.
an A
Street
According to the
first
payments
payable
for
State
give the Bond
loan is amortized at
while
(IRB) is on a 25
rated,
it now stands, the
(though expected to go down),
amortized
position
Street
collecting
the deal, as
interest
Banks'
This is paid by the project.
Standard
10,
$150
Industrial Revenue Bond, and
terms of
6 through
the
. balance).
for a State Street letter of Credit.
project
to
State
amount
standard
the
$120
increased
credit,
face
the
schedule.
the money, they
collateral
return
services
that
deal
stronger
also the Trustee of the
The $5.95
expects
Bank to raise
into the budget.
the
$5,000 annually.
year
a
the
per
(equal
Street
as
return
of
cost
them
provided cost-saving
In
percent by closing, due
float a state backed bond issue and sell the
restructuring
but
1983
resulting in a cost savings to
for the Land
would
The
10
May 11,
percent
In years
addition to the
through
balloon
of
20
payment
it
of
is
the
principal is to be made in year 20 of the project.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 21
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
There
is
Industrial
a
$19
Revenue
Bond.
maximum
amount
capital
improvements
years,
UDAG
capital
This
may
be
going
UDAG
C,
not
been
a
spent
part
leveraged
the
expenditure
means
back
expenditures would
project.
B,
that
capital
that
on
three
including any made by those
monies
the
million
May 11,
$19
this
project
years
and
of
this
package,
have
been
$10
for
on
the
is
the
for
any
million
leasing the
potential
cap
forward
space.
the
extra
cap
In
money
three
Had the
IRB
million.
1983
on
effect,
into
the
This stipulation precludes any higher use of sections
and
D
for
at
reached,
remaining
put more
money
least
space
years.
three
can
not
be
into improvements.
Once
leased
The
$19
the
if
limit
they
is
intend
million
to
can not be
exceeded for the six years total or the IRB can not be used.
As
Revenue
space
a
stipulation
Bond,
as
servicing
only
well
fee
on
required
as
the
EDIC
other
project
to EDIC.
Letter
pre-lease
412,776
or
takes
297,387
order
just
square
in
1984
53
account
is
payment
cover
to
percent
two
is
the
of
major
the
Industrial
pre-lease
enough
Revenue Bond debt
Credit
fee
and
the UDAG do not
for 1983
$75,000
this
square feet of
under
into
to
of
(Payments on
Yet this
In
D) ,
debt
of
1984 Industrial
IRB
the IRB.
payments.)
This
has
backing
1988 and City taxes were waived
payable
and
Bank
their
to more than cover the
payment,
until
the
for
and
in
the
start
1984.
Ground
The
Lease
subordinated to the
1984
IRB
Building
the
total
pre-leases
debt,
EDIC
(sections
rentable
of
IRB
must
B,
C,
space.
a
feet that have already been arranged.
combined
The Bank
backed into the requirement that a balance of 120.393 square
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
22
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
feet
be
leased
at
a
rate
rental
of
$2.62
May 11,
per
square
1983
by
foot
The tax waiver was essential to making this deal
June of 1983.
work.
to
EDIC claims
foot including
taxes, with an additional
an EDIC letter dated April 15,
starting at
to
10
year
ups
exclusive
lease.
the
over
Real
with
The terms
five
year
Yet
there
in which
years,
Estate
for
Agent
heat.
(Yet,
the
as
rents
of the rent are 8
and
in
are
kickers
the
rents will
the
project
the
no
the
tax
leases,
go up.
is
The
Codman
EDIC had leased 35 percent
Company, Inc.
By
of the
EDIC has until the middle of May,
space.
square
options
renewal
1983,
late April,
for
quoted
tenants,
square foot.)
a
leases,
in the
escalator
step
$2.45
$.50
a
$2.75
at
in which they are actively
1983,
agency
state
possible
seeking
rents
their
starting
be
1983,
or June
1st at the latest, to pull the required 53 percent leased space
into the project, to cover the Industrial Revenue Bond debt, or
else
they
have
will
to
renegotiate
the
deal.
and
EDIC
the
Codman Company are confident that they will meet the deadline.
While
the
syndication
bonds
deal
after
that date,
EDIC
has
can be renegotiated
would
fall
apart.
syndication agreement with DLJ Real Estate,
of
Wall
Inc.
Street
Under
investment
this
firm
agreement,
partnership
and
sells
discounting,
to private
to their investment.
$3
DLJ
Donaldson,
Real
Estate
million
in
investors, whose
This $3 million goes
Inc.,
signed
the
a
a subsidiary
Lufkin
&
forms
shares
liability
Jenrette,
a
limited
following
is
limited
into the project as
equity.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 23
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINTL REPORT
Of
$1.372
the
$3
million
promissory
collateral
who
as
be
in
front
and
paid
notes
lend
the
as
and
the
financial
the
information
the
rest
State
by
$1.645
1983
secured
over
the
Street
million
by
next
Bank
for
the
as
start
As the notes
credibility
of
costs
11,
svndication,
is
svndication
taken
remaining
from
the
the
by
are
cash
aqainst these investor notes.
goo.d
investors,
dollars
up
to
The
of the prolect
only
is
notes
years.
five
million
May
the
to
are
individual
determine
that
credibility are extremely high, the syndication must buv a Bond
assurity so that if individual
will
be
make
installment
1988) .
paid
by
the
investors default, then the Bank
insurance
payments
These yearly
company.
on the
loan
pavments are
syndication
investors
Because
deal
primarily
the
for
investors
the
building
page
summary
but
an
is
of
actual
Building
114
rehabilitate.
If
you
receive
assume
a
its
is
sold
benefit
have
older
As
the
to
as
credit:
will
a
than
these
tax
long
term
lease
years,
Twenty
there
tax
is
30
credit
hefty tax credit on their 1983
of
$12
not
a
on
a
would be
their
one
tax deduction,
For
example,
to
million
is
then
$80,000."
taxes,
in
$12
million
credit.
first year that
dollar.
investors,
of
they
EDIC
approximately
percent
are
by
for
individual
1983
40
"This
dollar
cost
(through
a
stressed
syndication,
years
coincide closely
investment tax credit in the
occupied.
one-time
five
from the tax depreciation.
being
would
renovated building that
eligible for a 20%
is
for
syndication must
arranged to
with the investors expected income
The
The
$2.4
each
To
million.
one
will
receive
that
it is crucial that most
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
24
BOSTON ARMY "ASE FINAL REPORT
of
the
building
If
the
deal
doubtful
be
is
in
1983
not closed by June
that
syndication
complete
the
deal
buildinq
will
be
and
will
lost
be
and
that
it
1st,
Mav 11,
be
it
becomes
readv
be
occupied.
increasingly
in
will
EDIC
1983
time.
The
liable
a
for
penalty fee of more than $200,000.
Assuming the deal proceeds
the building,
sections
B,
with
an
the Boston Harbor Limited
and
C,
option
D
for
of
an
the
Partnership.
project
(the
syndication)
payment,
EDIC
land
at
for
asset
for
that the
which
is
the
pays
the
years,
the
the
duration of the
benefits
property
remains
syndication
by
of
State
EDIC
and
Street's
to
can
any
property,
lease.
of
$75,000
investors
depreciation.
with
from EDTC
EDIC would be the
terms
EDIC
the
lease,
annually
prolect
by
can
The IRS
investors own the property.
tax
50 vears
years.
Under
owns
50
for
subordinated
technically
least
Partnership will lease
and tenants would sublease their space
Limited
Although
the
25
the
lease
114
Building
additional
manager of the building
from
as planned, rather than owning
for
debt.
leasing
the
depreciate
the
accepts the
fact
They are in effect buying
Yet,
not
the
be
stipulation
true
deed
transferred
and
as
it
to
the
to
the
is
also
essential for selling the tax free Industrial Revenue Bond.
50
years,
the
investment
deal
will
be
off
and
EDIC
will
In
then
own the Boston Army Base.
In
investors
years,
addition
in
deduct
to
the
1/15
the
one-time
syndication
of
the
may,
value
of
investment
for
each
the
building
return using a straight line depreciation.
Financing Community Economic Development
tax
of
credit,
the
on
the
next
their'
15
tax
They may also
PagCe
25
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
receive
any income
receives
the
its
land
future).
May 11,
1983
left over after the bills are paid and EDIC
lease payment
EDIC,
in
turn
(this cash flow is expected in
receives
the
income
"wrap-around" mortgage on the lease, at $75,000
from
annually.
the
This
mortgage payment is just like rent, and will be used to pay off
the
construction
addition,
EDIC
costs
over
receives
the
a
term
of
management
the
fee
project.
for
In
management
services of the Building.
After
the
syndication
closing
shares
able
to
each
$2.19
begin
of
and
are
at
are
UDAG
in
is
Industrial
through
and
Revenue
down the
private
investment.
interest
payments
deal
Industrial
UDAG
at
The
The terms
rate
of
3
Revenue
position
Bond,
State Street Bank.
of
Bond,
EDIC
will
be
funds
for
$1
of
UDAG
over
improvements
including
30
in the
terms
years.
fifth
in
of
loan
UDAG
year,
the
payoff
behind
the
servicing
and
of
IRB
the
two UDAG draws
tenant
percent
in
sale
of this $3.644 million
due quarterly, beginning
second
the
last
1984 will require
for leverage.
an
the
drawing
February and March of
$487,000
of
fees
These UDAG payments will return
to
the City of Boston.
While
there are
Base's
financing
of
can
considered
for
this
still risks involved
financial
outside
that
the
the
success
financial
affect
in
the
the
will
be
determined
markets.
of
is
in this deal.
viability
terms
deal
the
of
These
this
most
innovative,
The Boston Army
by
real
circumstances
market
project,
financial
deal
in
forces
have
been
order
to
safeguard against failure.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 26
May 11,
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
Base
leased
only
if
is
there
leased and operating.
must be up,
assume
projections
projections
for
growth
projections
are
changes
For the years 1985
and out,
Thus,
in the economy).
when
these
area,
course,
of
market
real
the
on
space
leased
for
financial'
any
drastic
leases to cover
stipulating
by
financial
These
Given
(barring,
realistic
the
is
building
immediate
in the
in this
the
period
strong.
be
will
1984
conditions
that market
Base
Army
the
projections,
steadily.
improve
projections
income
space
risk
high
the
is
It
year.
critical
financial
to
According
location.
of
this type
for
enough demand
successful
be
will
deal
The
debt.
the
cover
to
the Army
getting
is
the project
risk to
The major market
1983
1984 debt before closing, the Bank controls for the major
the
risk to the deal's success.
and
construction
the
precaution,
above
the
Given
rehabilitation of Building 114 becomes the most critical factor
to
success.
on
a
Improvements
timely
basis
paying their rent.
imperative
that
legally
break
helped,
such
other
adverse
precautionary
are
not
expertise
As
the
they
as
that
so
the
lease.
potential
ready,
be
to get the
and
being
strikes
to
While
see
say
can
be
construction workers
or
State
that
they
job done,
of
tenants
the
lest
can
not
While
market conditions,
overlooked.
in
and
the lease has an occupancy date, it is
building
measures
can move
tenants
budget
within
completed
must be
problems
all
Street
Bank
construction
they
feel
the Bank has
has
taken
difficulties
EDIC
hired
has
the
an outside
engineering firm, Merritt and Harris of New York, to analyze
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 27
May 11,
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
also
to
and
budget,
related
oversee
the
the
to
an
on
process
construction
the
and
building
In addition, the Bank required adequate funding
ongoing basis.
be
they
as
specifications
the
1983
hope,
they
This,
process.
construction
the
to
allocated
will lead to a completed building in the time necessary.
Representatives of both State Street and Shawmut Bank feel
that
return
this
of
retention
as
perceived
up
jobs
for
partnership
private/public
opening
as well
the
a
and
the
of
as
good publicity
in
into
investment
saving of the
City
the
garment industry,
the
building,
vacant
predominantly
of
rate
fair
a
get
will
They
one.
good
a
letter of credit
their
on
for what was
the
is
deal
the
State Street
creation of new ones.
feels that they have taken the proper precautionary measures to
and
project
the
to
risk
minimize
that
the
be
will
deal
successful financially.
Given the
required minimum in leases before the deal can
(on time and within budget),
close, a successful rehabilitation
and
an expected market demand to
will
be
its
tax
a
the
benefits,
Revenue Bond
Industrial
Bank
and
can
the
City
can
expect
and UDAG
fees,
met, EDIC can expect a management
expect
then
can
the
on
payments
repayments
will
be
fee and ground lease payment,
Real
substantial
expect
the deal
Building,
syndication
The
success.
financial
fill the
Estate
taxes,
and
given
income beyond this, the syndication can hope to make profits in
the
fiture.
Then
50
years
down
the
line,
EDIC,
or
the
City
will own the site, and all income generated from what may be a
very valuable piece of Real Estate.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 28
May 11,
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
The
will
up
May
and
as
well
as
firms
related
apparel
and
garment
several
with
leases
negotiating
currently
is
EDIC
commence.
will
renovations
the
time
which
at
planned,
as
1983,
of
end of
the
expected by
is
the property
closing on
the
are being drawn
documents
legal
At present, the
be met.
obstacles
any
that
confident
seem
involved
parties
1983
printing
two
firms.
conventional
Typical
any means.
by
not
financing for this deal is
From the view of the Bank,
the
of
large
being
deals
made in the City today are for the office buildings going up in
These
Boston.
downtown
are
considered
boom
private investment dollars and financing.
draw
and
areas
The Boston Army Base
property has been sitting idle for many years and is located in
an
that
area
prospects
present
at
is
site
The
good.
look
from
far
is
most
space must
foot of
the
enormous
the
that
tenants.
cost
low enough
be
to
sector
private
to draw such
this
renovate
building,
renovate
could
for
suitable
industry, as opposed to office and retail use.
it
future
though
booming,
light
Rent per square
Given
tenants.
it
to
doubtful
is
serve
such
The rents needed to cover costs would be too great.
In effect, the only way to bring industry into this mostly
vacant
of
idle building is through government
Yet, today's climate at the Federal
some sort.
against
public
partnerships
limited,
and
subsidies or funds
as
spending
stipulation
UDAGs,
which
thus
and
for
are
requires
federal
available
public/private
funds.
but
level goes
Funds
scarce,
are
are
no
longer given as grants, but loans, which must be matched by a
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 29
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
level
of
private
investment.
Thus,
May 11,
a
1983
public/private
partnership is essential to making this deal work.
the
Given
needed
to
equity.
The
Industrial
complete
the
Revenue
financing
was
packaging, suggested a
provide
equity
It
building.
such
and
private
a
in
consultant
UDAG
loan,
partner
and
exchange
for
a
long-term
to
deal
the
whose
money
pays
for
these
tax benefits.
the
but
investors,
C,
improvements.
and keeps
on
lease
the
and D),
EDIC
In this way, EDIC gets
project that it needs
financial
the
tax
federal
for all improvements to the
(sections B,
to the Building
the
investment that makes
is not the return on their
good
for
limited partnership to
syndication with
laws which permit a credit on taxes
land
the
the
Yet, EDIC needed to retain real ownership and control.
National Development Council,
this
and
Bond
regardless
had
no
use
the equity
legal title
of
for
for the
to the building,
while the syndication its tax benefit.
Ironically,
private
partnership
reduce public
same
the
time,
sector
deal
could
because
the
not
move
Federal
spending for city programs.
the Federal government will
allowed
the
deal
to move
ahead.
without
government
wants
Yet,
forego tax
the private sector for improvements to land.
that
ahead
a
to
at the
income
from
It is this policy
Federal
tax
policy
is
clearly a key to private development today, and in the end, the
Federal government pays anyways in taxes forgone.
All in all, the combination of the UDAG, syndication, and
the
Industrial
project.
Revenue
Bond
made
this
a
financially
Viable
It takes cooperation between the private and public
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
30
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
sectors
to
get
cooperation,
stage.
such
the
project
the
While
project meets
its
scale
project
not
to
1983
Without
this
proceeded
well
as
remains
done.
have
have
may
stated goal
proceed at all, given the
projects
would
question
the
financially,
large
May 11,
been
and
this
thought
out
not
the
whether
and mission,
to
or
in
should
fact
involved and
extent of public monies
the purposes to which that money has been allocated.
VII. Analysis
The
story
that EDIC's
that
unfolds
actions were
and objectives.
not
in
the
analysis
consistent
of
this
with its
It is now clear that purchasing
case
is
stated goals
and renovating
the Army Base will not directly benefit Chinatown or Boston's
garment
At
industry.
intervention.
Moreover,
best,
it
EDIC
appears
an
chose
that
EDIC
inappropriate
may
have
lost
sight of the purpose for its involvement, and has focussed most
of
their
effort
Chinatown's
did not really
that
the
the
development
rather
than
the
reason
Also, the fact that the Army Base project will not
behind it.
address
on
Army
economic
problems
suggests
intend this development to do
Base
is
merely
a
part
of
that
the
so,
but
a
whole
city
instead
other
development agenda.
EDIC's
agency's
attempt to
appropriate.
study:
mandate
is
community
economic
save Chinatown garment
development.
jobs
is
The
certainly
But a variety of issues have been raised by this
1) Was any government intervention necessary and/or
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 31
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
could
it
3)
saving?
Who
2)
Where
from the
benefit
will
these
jobs
garment
worth
Building
of
development
1983
Why did the city decide to buy Building 114?
4)
114?
effective?
be
May 11,
After exploring the nature of the garment industry several
firms
is
foreign
dependent
on
In
long
the
the major
Since
emerge.
patterns
the
imports,
and
national
run,
of
survival
that
U.S.
all
and
Boston
garment
firms
Boston's
forces
international
anything
to
threat
is
decisions.
does
may
be
No matter how high the city's investment, these
insignificant.
firms can easily pack up and move to another region or country.
The
survived
firms
that
to
Boston
tied
(major firm)
ceiling
Tufts
because
and
the
high
Clothing's
demand
eviction
their
of
low rent
a
of
trained
Chinatown
Before
firms
were
affordable relocation sites on their own.
are
Collegetown
labor
a
necessitates
costs.
70's
the
with
relationship
elasticity
crisis
crisis"
"import
availability
therefore
and
the
force.
low
and
price
after
the
to
find
able
Firms that moved to
East Boston, for example, run buses to and from Chinatown.
Given the projected character of the Army Base area, it is
questionable
able
to
whether
sustain
dissimilar
to
that
conditions
of
the
will
contract,
rate
the
not
small
operations
Army
basis.
lessor
Base,
garment
in
of Chinatown.
actually serve.
variable
or
one
a
competitive
questions
a
will
smaller
allocate
who
the
the
firms rent
company
more
be
so
leasing
building
space on a
acquires
space
will
market
When examining
Presently garment
If
companies
a
large
accordingly.
This allows tenants flexibility, so they don't encumber
Financing Community Economic Development
Page
32
will
feet at
$2.75/square
Although
foot.
to
subdivided
been
have
a
lease
to
required
be
tenants
feet
overhead
with unnecessary
themselves
1983
May 11,
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL PEPORT
114,
costs.
In
Building
minimum
of
34,000
square
two bays of
17,000
square
needs
spatial
the
accomodate
of
smaller firms, most of the leases will be for larqer amounts of
these
With
space.
garment
the
larger
for
the
unlikely.
entrv
firms.
IF this
is
as
building
while
Indeed,
many
only
EDIC planned poorly,
so,
lease
of
most
now
is
center
garment
of' the
to
limited
may be
a
industries,
related
apparel
with
terms
the
of
use
leasing
are
negotiations
the
space
will
the
firms
probably be rented to other light industrial firms.
There
originally
strong
in
jeopardy
Associates
have
the
given
or
not
following
present
their
at
terms
moved
to more desirable
Urban
reasons
for
and many
become
available.
sites,
and assisted them with moving costs.
Ron Altman,
EDIC's
owners
the
determination
the
that
Ironically,
a
good
Building, which is
114.
regional
to
city
was
number
of
this
firms
have
forced
about
moved
less than one half mile away
to other
firms
insists
that
convinced
many
ILGWU,
proiect
concerned
firms
firms were
some
relocate
director of
complete
some
this:
for the Army Base to
their buildings and could not wait
did help
Consulting
volume
higher
out of
EDIC
Army
the
some firms renegotiated
locations,
locations,
to
move
and
firms failed during the most recession;
their
not
will
EDIC,
BRA,
the
at
Sources
Base.
can
of
now many
that
indications
are
needs.
their
to
the
Fargo
from Building
These firms used the option of an Army Base lease to
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 33
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
unlikely
It's
landlords.
this
that
the
with
terms
leasing
favorable
negotiate
May 11,
other
and
Fargo
of
the
during
the
outcome
positive
1983
development was neither planned nor expected by EDIC.
There
no
is
evidence
that
any
at
point
development process that EDIC adequately assessed all available
help
solve
options
to
garment
industry.
if
the
programs more
other
direct
loans
or
facing
problems
Were market analyses
of
any
were
needs
appropriate
for
the
firms
training)?
At
the
point
job
and
Chinatown
the
conducted to determine
Also,
itself?
cure
would
market
the
at
EDIC's
(such as
EDIC
which
arrived at its intervention strategy, they became fixed on the
It is not clear whether or
development aspects of their role.
not they weighted the long term effects of this program against
other alternatives.
All
of
EDIC's
public
statements
focus
on
the
need
to
develop the Boston Army Base to save Boston's garment industry
and
Chinatown
jobs.
the
garment
firms,
Chinatown,
and
ignored
misjudged
EDIC
process.
Perhaps EDIC misinterpreted the needs
certainly
the
the
complexity
forces
that
could
of
this
needs
of
development
that
their
suceptible to external
and/or
could
program intervention was highly
market
economic
real
of
discerned
have
render
it
ineffective.
This
risk
highlights the questionable justification for the large sume of
money spent to save an "undertermined" number of jobs.
The
complex.
question of
The
garment
whether
these
industry
does
jobs
not
are
worth
provide
saving
"good
is
jobs",
defined by David Gordon as "adequate wages and fringe benefits,
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 34
1983
May 11,
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
job security and stable employment, decent working conditions,
for
opportunities
and
hand,
women
still
and
work
to
these jobs
for
care
to
able
be
fact a
labor
market
only entry
arriving
are
in
The Chinatown Housing and Land Development
three
and
immigrants,
new
for
immigrants
Chinese
new
hundred
year.
American
the
children.
their
Historically, the garment industry has provided the
into
social
allow many
hours
flexible
and their
in Chinatown,
institution
in
are
shops
garment
The
livelihood?
their
for
non-English
fifty year old Chinese women dependent on
speaking,
other
On the
the
for
possible
are
options
other
what
control".
and
advancement
Boston
each
Task Force,
in its efforts to save Chinatown's firms, made it clear that it
was not defending the industry but that the garment firms were
an economic necessity
is
that
asked
Force
Task Force was not
the
in
to participate
began
concerns.
attending
An interesting aside
community.
to the
appraised
site
selection.
GIRA
meetings
of EDIC's
plans or
of
the Task
Members
community
express
to
It is possible that earlier Task Force participation
Efforts may have been
could have lead to a different outcome.
more realistically focussed on the needs of Chinatown workers,
although
Task
the
Force
and
community
other
leaders
did
publically supported the Army Base project.
There
developing
another
is
the
Boston
hypothesis
Army
Base.
for
EDIC's
The
staff
avid
interest
admits
that
in
the
agency has been interested in purchasing Building 114 before it
was proposed
as
a
relocation
site
for the
garment
firms.
The
description of the Army Base points out its prime location for
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 35
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
grant
The
development.
1983
on
this
infrastructure
on
spent
EDIC's other
enhance
project will
money
May 11,
development
in the area,
the Base is contiguous with it's Marine Industrial Park.
if
the
Also,
for the Surface Action Group, purchasing
is chosen
site
as
Building 114 will prove to be a very strategic and profitable
may have
"crisis"
industry
garment
The
decision.
arisen
at
a
convenient time, but the city is intent on developing that area
However, the
and would not have purchased the building anyway.
UDAG, which was the key
financial
leverage of this development
deal, could not have been obtained without the stated objective
of retaining minority workers' jobs.
There is still question as to whether or.not the Army Base
deal
space
to
come
will
not
was
fruition.
rented
as
deadline is June 1, 1983.
by deciding
If
May
sufficient.
is
not
project
be
justified
the community
was
required
1,
1983,
minimum amount
while
the
of
closing
However, analyzing this development
EDIC was justified
114
Building
this
if
of
The
as
supposed
in risking
The
the purchase of
primary question
community economic
to
be Chinatown,
is can
development?
the
answer
is
clearly no.
Financing Community Economic Development
Page 36
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May 11,
1983
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Action
1970.
needs
quoted
for Boston Community Development, The Chinese in Boston,
Emphasis of this study is that the city has ignored the
findings are
Many of its
of its Chinese residents.
in future Chinatown studies.
A Case Study of
Alma Claire Armstrong, "The Boylston Building:
Economic
Community
the
for
Partnerships
Public/Private
The
1981.
June
Thesis,
M.C.
Chinatown",
of
Development
Chinatown
of
history
the
is
thesis
this
of
framework
development and the need for community economic development.
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority,
Planning
For
Boston's
Next
Decade of Development, 1980-90.
Roy Simon Bryce, Laport, Ed., Sourcebook on the New Immigration
- Implication, for the U.S. and International Community, 1980.
History of Chinese immigration to U.S. and a description of the
characteristics of the current immigrants.
Paul Bullock, Ed., Minorities in the Labor Market.
the discrimination that Chinese workers face.
Chinese Economic Development Council, Overall
1978 CEDC's statement of goals and objectives.
Documents
Economic
Plan,
Chinese Economic Development Council, Special Impact Area and
Target Group, January 1978. CEDC's description of the needs of
the Boston Chinese community and the residents of Chinatown.
Another Opinion, 1980.
Sol Chick Chaikin, A Labor Viewpoint:
A collection of Chaiken's speeches with an introduction by
Chaiken's emphasizes the importance of the
David Moynihan.
garment industry to the American economy and the need to
control imports.
The Needs and
June 1976.
Thesis,
Gih, M.C.P.
Stephen E.
Potentials for and of Planned Community Economic Development of
This thesis was written for
the Boston Chinese Community.
and description of the
Chinatown
of
view
Historical
CEDC.
particular emphasis on
Chinatown's
influencing
forces
current
Housing.
for
the need
The author analyzes
Robert Goodman, The Last Entrepreneurs.
discussion of the
the
In
the kinds of jobs in small firms.
on expediting
built
is
garment industry he states that industry
workers.
Towards a State Agenda, 1979.
David Gordon, The Working Poor:
Description and definition of good jobs.
Financing Community Economic Development
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May
11,
1983
Counterpoint Perspectives on
"Chinatown Seatshops",
Dean Lan,
The article describes the
Asian Americans, 1978, Emma Gee, Ed.
development of the garment industry, emphasizing the importance
of Chinese labor.
Thesis, May, 1979, Boston
Chu Wan Lui, M.C.P.
The
Land Development Strategies.
and
Housing
solve
to
ways
on
recommendation
several
deterioration.
Chinatown study makes
Chinatown's
Leon Stein, Out of the Sweatshop - the Struggle for Industrial
Very biased
Detailed history of the ILGWU.
Democracy, 1977.
of the U.S.
example
positive
a
as
it
uses
and
toward the union
labor organization.
Jose delaTorres,
the U.S. Apparel
Corporate Responses to Import Competition in
A study of how garment firms
Industry, 1978.
of different sizes
increased imports.
throughout
the
country
are
responding
to
The
Roger Waldinger, From Production Center to Spot Market:
Center
Joint
Industry,
Garment
York
New
the
of
Transformation
Study of the development of the
for Urban Studies, May 1982.
Discusses the
New York City.
on
focused
garment industry,
stabilized.
has
industry
the
why
and
current industry trends
Market
Labor
and
Enterprise
"Immigrant
Waldinger,
Roger
1982.
July,
Studies,
Urban
for
Center
Joint
Structure",
industry.
garment
of
the
Description of current characteristics
Financing Community Economic Development
BOSTON ARMY BASE FINAL REPORT
May
11,
1983
INTERVIEWS
Jane Donnelly; Project Staff, EDIC, April 21,
1983.
Lee Chalminiak; Communications Director, EDIC, April 21,
John Gould; Vice President, Shawmut Bank, April 5,
John Dwinell;
1983.
1983.
Real Estate, State Street Bank, April
14,
May 4,
1983.
First National
Joseph Tansey;
Street branch), April 27, 1983.
Bank
of
Boston,
(Washington
Paul Lyles; National Development Council, New York City.
Pat Vacarro; General Service Administration, Property Disposal
Department, April 4, 1983.
Steve Johnson; Senator Tsongas' Office, April 8, 1983.
Martin Foster; Senator Moakley's Office, April 8, May 3, 1983.
Roland Burke; Developer for Tufts University, Vey Consultants,
April 4, 1983.
Swain;
Bill
1983.
Chinese
Economic
Development
April
Council,
15,
Rob Hollister; Dept. of Urban Studies-Tufts University.
"The Guard" at the Boston Army Base; April 17,
Carol
1983.
Matheson;
Community
Development
1983.
Specialist,
BRA, March
Irene LaDoux; Urban Consultant Associates, April 1983.
Regina Lee; Member of Chinese Task Force.
Carl Proper; Public Relations Director, ILGWU, April 20,
Ron Altman;
1983.
Regional Director, ILGWU, April 21, 1983.
Roger Walldinger; MIT-Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies.
Peter Sessa; Attorney associated with Chinatown Task Force.
Financing Community Economic Development
Appendix A
Number
Boston
Firms
Number
of
Workers-
Firms
in
Chinatown
Number
of
Workers
%
Chinese
Number of
Threatened
Firms
Number of
Workers/
% Chinese
52
CEDC, 1978
1,500
4,600
"Mostly"
25
11
8,000
213
Boston Globe, 9/3/82
Task Force
600 '
Boston Globe, 2/16/82
35
1,782/52%
20
1,400
11
800
Brian Dacey, 10/8/81
EDIC Fact Sheet
(undated)
GIRA, 11/2/81
185
4,000
27
1,500
Boston Globe, 8/9/82
130
4,000
27
1,700
Dan Fishbein, 3/9/81
185
4,618
Dan Fishbein, 6/4/81
2,634-
5,65612,426
Source
109
6,087
Memo to Dan Fishbein
6/4/81
-~
sti:ate.I
BASE
Sectio.s
ARMY
B- STON
(,,
OO10
Prcject costs -
ITE"
Total:
Fhase 1: Phase 2:
hCQUISITICN
Buildings 3,C,
L.
950
0
950
1300
0
1300
1311
0
0
213
175
246
0
0
175
246
377
579
700
0
1077
579
1226
0
1226
36
0
250
1083
206
1083
6908
2470
9378
337
250
C87
-
Total Accuisitio
C NSTRUCTICN
Architectural
-interior
-Rcofing
-
-Decolition
Structural
& Venti1at
-eating
n
-Pluati
Electrical
-Power & Emergency
-UtiLit'.es
-Roads
Total
r
Const.
Costs
E
vU
.11O
(EIC
6
305
6
0
0
305
420
468
0
0
420
460
250
50
775
161
insurance
Conct.Anterest
Leaing verhead
Financing :ess
1311
213
S140
525
a
Adeinistrati
ndonigcy111
hae=i
si: imorov.emenlts,
14U
Bections
C
fh'
Sectin D
as: =
.
mrovements, ;eating System
-ased--c-c;tic price of$3.5 millicn for allof BAB
ecsts
-te
112 of t:tzl road & utility costs.
ac L,,
.
ar.;stU:Icri1n 6:r ncue
Drawdown
i
BASE
ARMY
BOSTON
& Financing Schedule
LIatb
IUNmIr
1983:98
(drawl12)
Nov. det. an. Feb.
Apr.
May
June july Aug .ept. Urt. ov. 1ec. Jan. -e .
otal
-
DRA---N:
G-cuisi t
Mar.
100
i
0
ion
v
Constructimn
(plus conting.,less retainage)
*Phase 2
*Retainage
445
6 Const. 1ngst.
*A/E
*Legal305
60
68
73
136
trinancing Fees
445
16
10
33
13
27
27
22
22
930 9379
20
18
4od
6
32
14758122
60
150
80
ob
.Aursc5
ou
56 3437 1261 1268 1718
666 395
*Syndicatian Proceeds
IRB
industrial Revenue
5
3322
35
713 747
305
68
FINANCING SOURCES APPLIED DUP.NS COnSTRUC710N
Dn. uevei. tuna
UDAS
Equity fr.:
d.
u
397 539
786
246
780 115
776
358 866 776
95 117? 540 535 765 533 409 414
1400
ilo
;u liIh
s liid
Ir.
btJ ~a .ai idel
~sEtynalcation
61
5 13020
5
245 350243224334
3644
3000
5950
/la.
;040
95!
3644
Bond
UDAS
-
587
31I
6
Construction Intereit
7TAL 10NTHLY DRAD.WN
hIUUS*
51
2224
445 445
691 247
4ab
*Insurance
*Contingency
*Uistl
445
810%
30
Frocelas
1762
EDIC Equity
nu i
abu~CeS 4
en piacement
t
t
y pa-nt S
1;. s pyaqle
EDC!'quity ncludEs S140,0-001 planning grants,
. V'42,A0 lesing overhead, $77,00 admisratin
andH
CBS ;rant.
70
'ih W0,0O
e
:pnIn
'T Ui&uAb Tunts for eacn 2.11 ofr prvate inVestmen t
5 i rawn ::n at
First 'iraiw C:curs a after syndication and IR3have been sold.
Last. UDcA;ra , in W14 ind.142/18A require tenant im-provments of$
,1 1706 for .g
lveage.
a'!I
6 UMW-j
-n
.
Projected
S2/3/82
BASE
ARMY
BOSTON
Ercss
Setcns
Ince --
-Ent
Category:
,CD
1926
1985
1984
17,3
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1992
---
- - -- - - - - -
-ra
--- - ----
Sarsent Tenants
T
eased:
ofs.f.
Z of total. s.f. lemcdi:
Incose I rent per s.f. of:
5 2.25
450000
57
450000 450000
57
57
50000
57
506250
-
-
89-
450000 450000
57
57
450000
753750 1507500
1507500
57
57
-
650250 1300000 1300500
650250
7240
272400.. 772400,
Z72400
272400
433116
86622 866232
433116
T.35
T
450000
450000
450000
uther Tenants
T 1ease
W,af -s-.
of total s.f. leased:
Income 8 rent per s.f.of:
7400.
_56TWQ1620
15
.68
501216
-
-
272400
272400D
1002432 1002432 1002432
T: Sround Floer Tenants
sf
56.30
as o
7
%of total S.f.IIC5Cd:
In 8zrent per s.fI. of:
1
15
.3.00
301
0108
63030
8
189000
189000
94500
109305
6
600 63000
8
8.
-
86625-d-.-
-
94500
218610
---
.
193175
0600 212666 228
7
218610
109305
-
26630
38542 2453442
785400
1001).
Assuaes aerage oc:u;ancy level of 851 during 1934 (701 increasing to
lease-up.
during
intme
anticipated
for
:rojections
oanthl;
2ec 1923
(
-
-
.7
Total Rentaile s.f.
63000
-6,000
a
8
8
a
'
3.47
Total Income fro; Rents
63000
6300 63000
8
-
2
-
0
2642367 2763:92 2763:92
BASE
ARMY
BOSTON
Net 0perating incme
-
Sectians
,C,D
FROJECTIONS
1983: "I"THuLY
Feb. March
Jan,
Apri1
A
ay
June
July
Aug. Sept.
Oct.
Dec.
Nov.
SROSS
REVENUE
Upper Floors
.Sround Floor
0
0
17199
0
17199
0
17199
0
19349
0
19349
0
19349
0
19349 107006
0 13138
0
17199
17199
17199
19349
19349
19349
1?349
120144
0
0
0
0
0
30855
737
565
0
737
565
0
737
565
0
737
565
0
737
565
0
737
565
34375
737
565
68750
4073
0
0
0
0
34947
0
344
0
344
0
344
0
344
2320
8803
8803
344
0
8803
8803
8803
8503
344
2320
8803
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5000
0
0
0
6000
0
12
0
0
0
0
6000
0
128
0
6000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6000
0
128
0
6000
0
0
6000
0
12E
0
0
0
0
0
6000
0
128
0
OPERATING CSTS
0
0
0
97034
16575
6575
16575
16575
REI1?URSAE E ?E*SES
0
0
0
4205
17
17
17
UU.. BEFORE
DEBT
0
0
0 -75630
641
641
2791
2791
N :;.O.E
0
0
0
-75630
-7489
-74348
-71558
-68767
EFFECTIVE GROSS
INCONE
0
0
0
0
0
Total
107006 343004
13138 26276
120144 36920
I'
1%1.UZ
U.6 1n
Utilities
*Heat
*Electric
*Nater & Sewer
taintenance
*Heating Systea, Etc.
Suildings & Srounds
Other
*anagement
*Insurance
*ax
Protecti-n
-Fire
Security
*Alar
*Trash
*SnowReova00
CU,.
i
0
0
0
0
*ElEvators
TnTrL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
6000
0
128
0
17
0
0
0
0
128
0
2496
17
-5530
3123
344
68750 202730
4073 13303
3123 10199
344
37697
13333
S3294
2m0
13333
0
0
0
0
6000
455
706
0
0
0
0 6 00A
0
0
0 15003
6000 54000
453
706
2000
5327!
9912
4652
52471
53972 115416
-29240
73502
73003
-70031
42547
-74296 -103536
0 = gros s.f.
Vacancy Ot:
.6
;..
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-a .
~ i ~1.c-instruc-tion
~
r.
start
Assu::es Ari!acquisition
ASS2Ses 2ce-..2er IS st art fr tenant izmroveents c.n ground end upoer flocrs
*r grnUnd
p of flor and af upper flznrs
--- y forcostci :;erating heti.g ;a,-, during Apri
*iecrse
;rn
reit
.
i service =entl'y cash deficits.
.6
I AA
.
tAr
. j.
.86
.
.21.
.
2
101112
factzr applied to expenses
infilaticr.
8
916
2306
200
.
429
---
-
prtng
141 Incame
t
BASE
ARMY
BOSTON
,,
etos
PROJECTION (Subject to Revision)
TEc YEAR
-
19WI
1987
1996
1985
1994
1993
1990
1999
---- ---
-
-----------------------
--------------
---------
1991
1992
.4id
u'.#
acancy 3 57,
Less
3692801693175
zRnc; INCE
C= CrTIE
tan 64A
1Utilit:Es
*Heat
ct
1959945
20155 3 2168648
463485
491294
43250
202730
88294
134874
127240
0
6000
tiah
(sa
Reaeval
15000
54000
2306
2000
SS
cEI1 .EEXE
Foot
115416391935
-15
---
--------
49682
180492
1
30UL
Q
1561953 1646597 1726675
2.20
2.10
1.99
--------
1061975
1160993
1.48
1.35
------- -------- --------
1217129 1247807
1.59
1.55
:-y-r
--------
n7clude cost ci heat,
trasih dli-
-
--
l a~m
2-.?--m adsurmvl
3 beginin
gi
55822
202801
59172
322 1 i 131252
12
38013
35862
V
-'JU
aiJ4
-----------
1363502 1429541 14082-8
1.79
1.82
1.74
cost to the landiard of
in1995. the increase over the base year (19"4
avi::::gneang sylster. an-.c eievatar- auteance, tuzsllng Insurance,. ilectricity 7Tr commn
oancy.
194 assumes 257 average
are ccana quipmt, anu tieestic water and sewer use.
cercig os prjetiesare b an adjusted historical -data frcm 23%liF auildZin; C3: and
13:
191322
----
S.f.
acssOC
ex;,CnSCs
52663
1839284 1939783 201585
2.57
2.47
2.34
zassa N.renta,512 s.t.
Er SqUarl FG51r
inflation factor aipliied ta expenses
-
2625032
799151
744291
692537
643712
597651
554198
513203
474530
1.02
.95
.83
.82
.76
.71
.65
.60
.50
1035228
42970 803175
1.32
1.02
.05
0..1.8EFE 2E87
Per Souare Fcot
4
------- -------
----------------------------
-m.
2625032
15000
15000
15000
15000
15000
15000
15000
15000
15000
121642
114757
108261
102133
96352
9098
85753
80899
76320
UL'
uc74
iZ
/,11 471
u
izo02 Q
16120
17094
15214 16126
14352
13540
12774
11369 12051
0137
9563
9022
8511
9029
7575
7146
6742
6360
441726 1281935 1399246 1466911
1.87
1.78
1.63
.56
COSTS
OEAiING
7O7AL
8quare Foot
Per
46869
44216
170275
160637
V.
4vINU
ni
Protecticn
*SeCrity
41714
151545
39353
142967
1!6538 1
113304
105432
100779
97997
84659
33832
31917
30110
28406
23850 25281 26793
i su.U nQi
*Fire
---
2510249
696910
657462
0247
595139
552018
iZ51i
3037
M7
S7604
!'ua 1"! Ita
60 08
56706
53496
50468
47612
44917
42374
39976
37713
10199
*Oaneent 151of E.3.1.
---------
2330770
138160
520772
6,
*Eevators9281
*8uildings . Srunds
Per
2266075
138160
132118
122672
119267
2a1
w
Sewer
*Water
A.aint enrancea
*Sor.
114139
106083
103155
-
2671/
~.C
~W.~.
t
ns
~
--------
104
6
L
Service
I2114/83
BASE
ARMY
BOSTON
,
ectics
--
(dt8)
TEti y AR PRO3EOTi!H
(Subject
1954
1?a5
983
I
DEST
t Revision)
1?H6
&/
l
Ia
10
U2;
&5 liC9
1I
PAYMENTS
million,
2
10.257,
Urban Dev. Action Grant
f -9q2
217W!!29
r. sched.I
202381 20238
202381
--
--
-
-
275
087
085
tinad. IRev.W-14,14085
(5.95
199
1990
939
198
1987
4
2023
20233
Q0
1
4958
49
OnTER PAYMEN4TS
(1.25.of outsidag,
*IRB
Servicing Fee
--
(*
DEBT
Oly
DRB
*Total Debt & Other Payments
--
30444
1.32
1.04
262497
772731
1.37
and amortiE
IB oft 33.73 2 on is interest cruy tar a years ;473-4a0
4.57, during years 11-20; balloon af principal in year 20.
IRS payments are due seni-annually; AS payeents are due quarterly
M letter 51 crecit and sErvicing tees are CuEannually
(a
Di
Uzl
I- ni
772731
1.90
-
2.00
25
4958
4958
j MMJ~ 1'LJV
1381h2
289244
1.70 1.74
1.34
4958
1.
z 4
772731
772731
0
42970
70.0010
a
4958
495
4958
-
PAYMENTS
& OTHER
AFTER
INCOM1E
NJET
i-s7
princ.bal.)
vurcunCu5C
DEBT
TOTAL
--- i 6
=ldv Zsi
7
-
2MtttEr aT creau. FEE
i-NU
0'
975112 1084221
242017
1.73
1.15
163556
1.93
1.27
& curing years b-iV and
4958
Vv
UU
071279
1058335
292223
37203
2.06
1.35
2.06
.35
104539
36291
m mm
AN
BOSTON ARMY BASE & BSO
INaUinnA
Lj-W4
ft
mm aran off
Fa
.~
4)11
sI et
U
K,'
E1C/UBostonI
TO:
Brian F. Dacey, Marilyn Swartz Lloyd, Martha Goldsmith
FROM:
Dan Fishbein -
DATE:
March 9, 1981
RE:
Relocation of Garment and Leather Goods Firms
Attached is a statistical profile of the Boston garment industry, information
on companies which have requested relocation assistance, and a list of
potential sites for relocation. These materials are summarized below:
PROBLEM
* 4,000.jobs at stake, 130 companies in garment and
leather districts threatened by downtown expansion.
e 90% of employees are Boston residents, most are
low-skilled minorities.
e
Would totally negate the 4,000 industrial job
increase since 1977.
*
Primary reason for dislocation is increasing demand
for office and housing space.
Secondary reasons:
BRA planned reallignments of South Street and
Atlantic Avenue, expansion ,of Tufts University Medical
Center, congestion, and desire for equity.
COMPANIES REQUESTING ASSISTANCE
a 21 companies employing 1,700 people.
* Must remain near Chinatown. Interested in nearby
locations in South End and South Boston.
COURSE OF ACTION
* BRA makes 4.5 acres of land at 433-439 & 543 Harrison
Avenue available.
p EDIC makes BMIP entranceway area and Army Base
available.
-
Request that Massport consider making space available
in Naval Recreation area and Commonwealth Flats.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
o-
18 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108 /1(617) 725-3342
Brian F. Dacey, Marilyn Swartz Lloyd, Martha Goldsmith
March 9, 1981
Page 2
* BIDFA and First National Bank of Boston make
industrial revenue bond financing available
for new construction.
s
EDIC/BRA subsidize development pending need
and availability (.Government Land Bank, 121A
or in-lieu-of-tax agreement with land lease,
EDA Trade Adjustment Assistance).
TIME FRAME
* Most firms must find a new location within 1
year. Up to 1,000 jobs have been lost during
the past year.
With a few exceptions, the companies which have contacted EDIC/Boston are
most interested in locating at the BMIP or the BRA properties on Harrison
Avenue, near E. Berkeley Street. Given the large number of companies which
must relocate it may be feasible to construct new buildings at both locations
with 1 or 2 anchor firms at each location. Two financially sound firms,
Berman Leather and A vanced Electronics, are most interested in the South
End property, while Fitwe
ght anchor a South Boston facility.
The First National Bank of Boston has shown some interest in purchasing
industrial revenue bonds or providing some other financing for a new facility
if an anchor company takes responsibility for amortizing the loan.
It may also be worthwhile to urge Massport to lease or sell 4-5 acres of
the 29-acre Naval Recreation Area or 22-acre Commonwealth Flats site.
The location of a garment/leather industry facility on a small portion of
1 of these sites would not interfere with Massport's interest in providing
space for maritime-related development.
DF:jm
xc: Henry Price
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
-
EIIC/Ilostonm
TO:
Dan Fishbein
FROM:
Mike Adams & Sandra Curry
DATE:
March 5, 1981
RE:
Profile of Garment Industry
The garment industry in Boston-includes 213 firms employing between 5656 and
12,426 persons. The average number of employees per company is 41. The
following is a breakdown of the industry according to products produced and
the location of firms. The information was compiled from EDIC/Boston's
Directory of Boston Employers. The employment figures are based on employment
range categories used in the Directory.
The largest concentrations of'firms in the garment industry are located in the
downtown area, South Boston, East Boston and the Washington Street and Massachusetts
Avenue area of Roxbury.
DOWNTOWN
CITYWIDE
PRODUCT
# of Firms
# of Employees
# of Firms
# of Employees
1. Men's & boy's
38
728-2011
23
336-1008
110
3462-7696
72
2056-4521
18
640-1404
7
200-471
4. Other
46
756-1757
7
42-87
TOTAL
212
5586-12,868
suits, coats,
& furnishings
2. Women's outerwear and undergarments
3. Children's outerwear, fur goods &
miscellaneous
apparel and
accessories
109
2634-6087
MA:SC:jm
-30.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
18 Tremont Street. Boston, MA 02108 / (617) 725-3342
EIIC/UIostum
TO:
Dan Fishbein
FROM:
Mike Adams,4
DATE:
March 5, 1981
RE:
Sites Available for Garment Industry Re-location
(
SOUTH END
A.
1.
464 Harrison Avenue
150,000 SF/Building; 20,000 SF/Open Land
Owner:
Davidson Management Company
Availability:
Currently available for lease at
-
$2.50-$2.75 SF.
2.
500 Harrison Avenue
150,000 SF/Building; 20,000 SF/Open Land
Owner: Davidson Management Company
Availability:
Currently available for lease at
-
$2.50-$2.75 SF.
3.
B.
.
.13
.
433-443 Harrison Avenue and 543 Harrison Avenue
Approximately 4.2 acres separated by underutilized
side street.
Owner:
BRA
Availability: Proposals for development will be
considered by the BRA.
SOUTH BOSTON
1.
BMIP Ent-:ance, 660 Summer Street
190,000 SF/Open Land
Owner:
EDIC/Boston
Availability: 60,000 SF are now available in the BMIP. This
can be expanded to 190,000 SF by moving utility lines
and/or acquiring the Army Base.
2.
Navy Recreation Site; 500 block Summer Street
100,000 SF/Building; 800,000SF/Open Land
Owner:
MassPort
Availability: MassPort has not decided on a use
for this property.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corooration of Boston
18 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108 / (617) 725-3342
Dan Fishbein
March 5, 1981
Page 2
3.
Commonweatlh Flats, Summer Street
22 Acres open land
Owner: Massport
Massport plans to make this available
Availability:
to the fishing industry.
4.
Fargo Building, 451 D. Street
131,000 SF building space available
Broker:
Codman Company, Exclusive
Availability: 15,000 SF on 3rd floor, 51,000 SF on 4th. floor,
28,000 SF on 5th floor, 47,000 SF on 6th floor,
5.
Boston Army Base, 660 Summer Street
2,424,000 SF building space
Owner: U.S. Army
Availability:. Building 114, containing 1,651,200 SF of
Space available
space will be conveyed to EDIC in 1 year.
(Time frame too long for most companies)
for lease in 2 years.
C.
CHARLESTOWN
1.
Charlestown Navy Yard, Chelsea Street
Building #114:
Building #149:
Buil.ding #199:
80,000 SF
725,000 SF
550,000 SF
BRA
Owner:
BRA will consider proposals for buildings
Availability:
Companies interested must form a single development
entity. All three buildings would need some rehabilitation
work.
2.
7 Sherman Street
50,000 SF/Building; 13,000 SF/Open Land
Barry Goldman
Owner:
Presently available for sale at
Availability:
$175,000. Building has wood frame, aluminum siding.
MA: jm
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
-0
n <Oi
(E
)
0ii
lb
0 ( n<
0
f-S
0-0
~2
00 1
-1zC
al0
rLZ
0j5'
1
!
CH- 3
3
-j
L~J
1~-
S
1ftu
~1
L~J
AND LEATHER GOODS COMPANIES
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR GARMENT
- -
<.....+
k
.
~
CA TL
...-..
s[ []
[-
c
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR GARMENT
- AND LEATHER GOODS COMPANIES
x
a
'-2'
V$
[~~).-.
~~~
~
~~
~]r[_Z~
r~~~
6
K~
*
--
Prepared By
_
.
L]
-
Economic Development & Industrial Corp.
18 remiont~S Boston, MA 02108-
----
6
\
SOUTH BOSTON
6990
Q00
1600
3200
FEET
1 1 irt
%'f
POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR GARMENT
AND LEATHER GOODS COMPANIES
t
LI
I'
1
SOMERVILLE
CAMBRIDGE
Prepared By:
Economic Development & Industrial Corp.
18 Tremont St., Boston, MA 02108
-
h
CHARLESTOWN
August 20, 1981
RESULTS OF THE DOWNTOWN BOSTON APPAREL AND LEATHER COMPANY SURVEY
Hinety-one percent of the respondents to the Economic Development and
industrial Corporation of Boston (EDIC/Boston) apparel and leather industry
survey must relocate. These companies will need over 600,000 square feet of
space.
'The majority of the companies who responded to the survey appear to be
stable businesses. The aggregate- employment level has increased 24 percent from
three years ago and the vast majority of companies indicated that their units of
production and gross sales have increased also.
The survey was done by EDIC/Boston to assess the magnitude and immediacy of
the relocation problem which faces the garment and leather companies of downtown
Boston and to determine the space requirements for a garment center building.
Distributed to 185 companies in-the downtown area, a full 25 percent, or 47
firms responded to the survey. These 47 companies employ 2,356 people which
represents 51 percent of the estimated 4,600 downtown garment workers.
Of the 47 companies answering the survey, 43 firms who employ 2,016 people
indicated that they must relocate. The reasons mentioned most often for having
to move are the conversiQn of buildings to office-space (15 companies) and
medical space (11 companiesl.
Based on the lease expiration dates of the- companies who need to move, the
relocation problem is immediate. Twenty companies, 47 percent of those who need
to relocate, are either tenants-at-will or have leases which expire in 1981.
Another 14 companies have leases that will end in 1982.
The average rent which apparel manufacturers and contractors currently nay
is $2.16 per square foot with a range of $.94 to $4.01. Garment and leather
wholesalers, who usually have smaller spaces than the garment producers, pay an.
average of $3.64 per square foot. The range of rent for wholesalers is much
greater, $1.25 to $10.50, because the quality of space varies significantly.
S$me wholesalers haye mostly warehouse space, while others require only showrooms.
Boston's two largest banks, Shawmut Bank of Boston and First National Bank
of Boston, have the majority of respondents as clients with 21 and 18 firms,
respectiyely.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
18 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108
VIM.
-
*
~
!---31
/ (617)
725-3342
-2The apparel industry, which is quite labor-intensive, employs a large
percentage of minorities. Of the 2,356 people employed by the companies who
responded to the survey, 47 percent are Oriental and another 18 percent repIn addition, 58 percent of the workers
resent other racial minority groups.
are residents of Boston. A majority of the employees, 57 percent, use mass
transportation.to get to work, while another 21 percent walk.
Nearly all the respondents were interested in locating in a permanent
garment center building. Thirty-seven companies would be willing to contribute S200 - $400 towards hiring consultants to devise a feasibility study,
building scheme and financial plan for such a garment center. A matching.
contribution would be made by public and private institutions.
Although preference with regard to location of a garment center was not
a question on the survey, interest was shown for several suggested options.
Sixteen companies had a specific interest in South Boston at either the Boston
Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) or the Boston Army Base, while five other companies desired to build on property in the South End. Eight wholesale companies were interested in a wholesale trade center which would attract buyers
throughout New England.
Based on detailed building requirements and using a computer program,
several cost estimates were developed for alternative garment center buildings.
The construction of a 400,000 square foot building with 4 freight elevators on
2 floors at the BMIP would cost approximately $32.00 per square foot. This
could accomodate the 16 companies who previously expressed an interest in the
plan. With two additional stories for this building, the cost would be $30.50
per square foot. When portions of the building which can not be used for
production or office space (stairways, elevators, cafeteria) are deducted from
the total building area, construction costs increase to $38.00 per square foot
and $36.00 per square foot respectively. The cost of construction of a
building in the South End would be comparable. Because construction costs
are high there has been increased interest in locating at the Boston Army Base.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
Strong response:
47 companies employing 2,356 people
77% of respondents could face eviction/substantial rent
increases within 1 year.
462 employees added in past 3
Respondents are stable:
years. Units of production rising.
58% of employees live in Boston.
transportation to work.
Most take public
16 companies expressed strong interest in locating
garment center at BMIP or BAB, 400,000 SF needed.
Undecided companies could increase garment center to
600,000 SF.
2 or 3 story garment center (new construction) would
cost approximately $25.00 - $30.00/SF (final estimate will be
available Thursday).
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
'AC/BITstOIl
I4A
GARMENT SURVEY RESULTS
PART
Group
A
Total
Type of Product:
(number of companies)
women's apparel
samples
men's apparel
other
Group
C
'9
21
7
8
2
Bank:
(number of companies)
First National Bank of
Boston
Shawmut National
other
Annual Rent:
Group
B
31
8
2
3
3
leather goods
Type of Company:
(number of companies)
manufacturers
contractors
wholesaler,garment
wholesaler, leather
other
I
18
21
8
standard
mean deviation
manufacturers
contractors
wholesaler, garment
wholesaler, leather
other
2.34
l..98
4.0.3
3.25
1.53
.72
.89
3.60
2.43
---
All
2.28
1.29
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Deve!opment & Industria! Corporation of Boston
18 Tremont Street, Boston MA 02108/(61J;7242
GARMENT SURVEY RESULTS
PART I
Total
Do you expect a substantial rent increase
this year?:
(number of companies)
YES
NO
24
14
other
2
did not answer
7
Expiration date of
current lease:
(number of companies)
tenant at will
21
8/81 to 11/81
12/81 to 3/82
4/82 to 7/82
8/82 to 11/82
12/82 to 3/83
4/83 to 7/83
8/83 to 11/83
12/83+
owns building
2
4
8
2
3
2
0
3
1
did not answer
1
Do you need to relocate?:
(number of companies)
definitely
likely
unlikely
definitely not
29
14
1
-
did not answer
3
Group
A
Group
B
Group
C
GARMENT SURVEY RESULTS
PART I
Total
Why do you have to
relocate?:
(number of companies)
conversion to housing
15
11
rent increase
did not answer
does not have to relocate
but interested in
garment center
4
4
1
147
conversion to officespace
conversion to medical
573
805
1,205
320
35
296
modernize
rent increase
160
did not answer
250
does not have to relocate
but interested in
garment center
Group
C
3
6
Why do you have to
relocate?:
(number of employees)
conversion to housing
need to expand or
Group
B
3
conversion to officespace
conversion to medical
space
street reallignment
need to 'expand or
modernize
space
street reallignment
Group
A
90
Current number of
employees:
manufacturers
contractors
wholesalers, garment
wholesalers, leather
other
625
1,546
76
91
18
Total
2,3'56
GARMENT SURVEY RESULTS
PART I
Group
A
Number of Employees 3
years ago?:
manufacturers
contractors
405
1,340
wholesalers, garment
54
wholesalers, leather
74
other
21
Total
1,894
Ethnicity of Workforce:
(number of employees)
black
hispanic
oriental
other minorities
caucasian
144
177
1,108
95
819
did not answer
Total
Group
C
Group
.B
13
89
80
647
87
302
-
9
34
231
46
-
2,356
1,205
320
1,362
774
259
1,330
679
66
490
183
231
$9,258,500
$2,525,000
Workforce Transporta-
tion Needs:
(number of employees)
employees living in
Boston
employees using public
transportation
employees who walk to
work
Number of Employees
Living in Boston:
manufacturers
contractors
wholesalers, garment
wholesalers, leather
other
277
1,034
19
20
12
Gross Payroll:($)*
manufacturers
contractors
wholesalers, garment
wholesalers, leather
other
$ 4,188,500
12,625,000
125,000
1,327,000
500,000
Total
$18,765,500
*Note: Number of
companies not
answering
12
GARMENT SURVEY RESULTS
PART I
Group
A
Total
Production and Sales
In the past 3 years
have your units of production changed?:
(number of companies)
increased
decreased
stayed the same
did not answer
31
5
5
6
In the past 3 years
have your gross sales
changed?:
(number of companies)
increased
decreased
stayed the same
did not answer
35
2
5
5
Would you consider a
new garment center
building?:
YES
NO
did not answer
43
3
1
Would you prefer to
lease or owh?:
(number of companies)
lease
own
did not answer
12
26
9
Preference to lease
or own
(number of companies/
number of square feet)
lease
own
did not answer
Would you contribute
$200-$400 towards a
consultant?:
YES
NO
did not answer
12/ 71,900
25/500,500
10/114,500
37
8
2
7/ 48,800
22/420,500
6/
80,500
Group
B
2/ 17,000
12/295,500
2/ 23,500
Group
C
0/0
5/65,000
Part II Survey Results
Group A:
All companies interested in garment center except
wholesalers
35 respondents
16 respondents
Group B:
BMIP subgroup
Group C:
South End subgroup 5 respondents
Questions:
A.
Gross floor area:
B.
What percent of A
A
B
558,800
336,000
65,000
30,275
700
369,275
17,400
127,500
139,600
64,300
9,330
1,500
0
15
-1
5
0
C
would be:
1) office
2) warehouse
3) mfg./assembly
4) other
C.
"...
would space
above first floor
be OK?"
Yes
No
D.
could some
"...
portion of operation
be above first floor?"
E.
If yes to D
149,920
33
6
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
F.
Minimum ceiling height
square feet of floor
space with ceiling
over 12'
1) office
2) warehouse
3) manufacturing
4) other
G.
Length x width
4,400 s.f.
33,700
33,070
0
0 s.f.
31,000
0
0
0 s.f.
0
0
0
B
A
H.
C
% of wall
space for
windows
2) # of freight/
1)
shipping doors
25
7
75.08
41.75
5
38
16
5
67.08
35.25
6
51
3) Estimated size
of doors
4) Hours/day use
of door
#
of freight
elevators
6) Size of elevators
5)
7) Weight cap. of
elevators
8) Hours/day use
elevator
I.
Utilities
Heat
1) office
2) warehouse
3) manufacturing
4) other
Total
30,275 s.f. 18,150 s.f.
114,900
136,270
189,600
365,675
0
7,550
277,650
539,770
700 s.f.
0
60,700
0
61,400
A/C
1) office
2) warehouse
3) manufacturing
4) other
Total
26,070
136,270
280,150
17,400
114,900
150,600
0
4,750
0
0
39,000
0
447,240
282,900
39,000
26
Ventilation
1) office
2) warehouse
3) manufacturing
4) other
5) # of amps
6) steam required:
yes
no
if yes:
volume
pressure
J.
Rest room facilities
1) office
male
female
2) warehouse
male
female
3) manufacturing
male
female
4) other
male
female
12
5
8
4
0
160
540
80
80
90
42
77
21
55
00
82
31
58
15
0
0
376
1,588
212
866
29
279
14
38
2,243
10
19
1,25
0
0
B
A
K.
"...
separate
toilet facilities/
common facilities
acceptable?"
yes
no
L.
Parking
1) employees adj. to
prop./all day
2) employees adj. to
entrance/all day
3) visitors entrance/
2 hours
4) visitors entrance/
15 minutes
5) number of trucks
parked overnight
small
medium
large
M.
100
18
49
13
0
53
21
0
35
326
14
1~4
6
lli
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Willing to pay for
parking?
yes.
no
N.
189
C
Fee for parking
Indoor
range
average
Outdoor
range
average
29
4
$25-60/mo.
$46.40/mo.
$20-50/mo.
$34.70/mo.
13
5
0
2
$30-65/mo.
$52.60/mo.
$20-50/mo.
$34.70/mo.
$60/mo.
$60/mo.
$30/mo.
$30/mo.
K.
"...
C
B
A
separate
toilet facilities/
common facilities
acceptable?"
yes
no
L.
Parking
1) employees adj.
to
prop./all day
2) employees adj. to
entrance/all day
3) visitors entrance/
2 hours
4) visitors entrance/
15 minutes
5) number of trucks
parked overnight
small
medium
large
M.
100
18
49
13
0
53
21
0
35
14
6
148
aI
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
29
.13
2
5
Willing to pay for
parking?
yes
no
N.
189
Fee for parking
Indoor
range
average
Outdoor
range
average
4
0
$25-60/mo.
$46.40/mo.
$30-65/mo.
$52. 60/mo.
$60/mo.
$60/mo.
$20-50/mo.
$34.70/mo.
$20-50/mo.
$30/mo.
$30/mo.
$34.70/mo.
GARMENT INDUSTRY RELOCATION ASSOCIATION NEWS
Published by the Economic Development
and Industrial Corporation of Boston
September 29, 1981
GARMENT INDUSTRY RELOCATION ASSOCIATION FORMED
The garment companies located in the Chinatown vicinity have formed an
association which will be the driving force behind the relocation of the downtown
apparel industry.
The first meeting of the Association, held on September 17 at the Quincy
Community School, was attended by 21 company owners and representatives from the
First National Bank of Boston, the Shawmut National Bank, the International Ladies
Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), the Mayor's Office, the Economic Development and
Industrial Corporation of Boston (EDIC/Boston), the Boston Redevelopment Authority
(BRA), the Boston Committee, the Chinatown Housing and Land Development Task Force,
Cofngressional staff members and trade associations. The Association's goal is to
make space available for member companies at the Boston Army Base as soon as
possible and at an affordable cost.
The Associations' first task will be to hire a consultant to represent the
industry during its relocation efforts. The consultant will also provide technical
assistance to member companies for financial packaging, cost estimates and advice
on development. Each member of the Association has contributed $400.00 towards
the consultant's fees.
Tufts New England Medical Center (T-NEMC) Executive Director Edward Ehrlich
has agreed to match the $400,00 contributions with up to $10,000. Many Association
embers are T-NEMC tenants at the 15 and 35 Kneeland Street buildings, which are
operated by T-NEMC.
The Association meeting included a report by the EDIC/Boston on the progress
being made towards obtaining the Boston Army Case. A $75,000 grant has recently been
obtained by EDIC in order to determine what utility and building improvements will
be needed at the Base. EDIC's top priority is to allocate space in the 1,600,000
square foot Boston Army Base to Association members.
Rents in the building will be based on its acquisition costs, improvement
costs and operating expenses for heat and maintenance. While building renovation
costs will be known in early November, EDIC/Boston is urging federal authorities
to determine the building sale price by the end of the year. The Association
consultant will work to speed up this process.
An Executive Committee for the Garment Industry Relocation Association was
selected at the September 17th meeting. The Committee will meet bi-weekly to hear
reports from the consultant, and determine what needs to be done to move the
project forward. All decisions of the Committee will be subject to the approval
All Association members will hold monthly
of a majority of Association members.
EDIC/BOSTON
18 TREMONT ST
BOSTON
MA. 02108 617-725-3342
MARIO SPORTSWEAR LEASE FOR FARGO BUILDING NEARING COMPLETION
It is anticipated that Mario Sportswear Company, Inc. will finalize leasing
arrangements with the Codman Company for approximately 24,000 SF of space in the
Fargo Building within the next few days. Mario Sportswear Treasurer, Salvatore
Lo Porto, was informed about the availability of space in the Fargo Building,
located at 451 D Street near the Boston Army Base, during a meeting at the EDIC/
Boston office on January 10.
Mario is currently located at 10 Thatcher Street in the North End. The new
building owner plans to convert the facility to residential condominiums. EDIC/
Boston, Mario's Attorney, and the BRA worked with the building owner to give Mario
three months of additional time to relocate. The space to be leased in the Fargo
Building could not have been readied for Mario, if this time extension had not
been obtained.
EDIC/BOSTON
18 TREMONT ST. BOSTON
MA. 02108 617-725-3342
meetings. Committee and membership meetings will be co-chaired by a garment
company owner (to be selected), Ronald Alman, New England Regional Director of
the ILGWU, and Brian F. Dacey, Director, EDIC/Boston.
Members of the Executive Committee are:
Murton Sudalter
owner
Victor Bias Binding Company
Lester Geist
owner
Herman Geist, Inc.
Dexter Fields
owner
Cricket Sportswear, Inc.
Selma Gottlieb
Executive Director
Apparel Manufacturers Association
Ronald Alman
New England Regional Director
ILGWU
Jay Fialkow
Attorney
Apparel Manufacturers Association
Brian F. Dacey
Cirectnr
EDIC/Boston
U.S. Senator Paul E. Tsongas
Robert Ryan
Deputy Mayor
Director, BRA
U.S. Representative John J. Moakley
U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy
David Lavien
Legal Counsel
Contractor's Association
Joseph Tansey
Assistant Vice President
First National Bank of Boston
Glen Hutliff
Chinatown Housing and Land
Development Task Force
A.V. O'Hanley
Vice President
Shawmut National Bank
Frank Jones
President
The Boston Committee
Additional Committee members can be chosen by majority vote of the Association
The first Committee meeting will be held on October 2 at 10:00 AM at the
members.
office of the ILGWU. At that time, Committee members will interview a proposed
Association consultant. Committee members will also review the Association by-laws.
FUTURE NEWSLETTERS WILL BE MAILED TO ASSOCIATION MEMBERS
All companies who
the Association. This
the consultant's fee.
tactMurton Sudalter at
426-6391.
wish to be a part of the Garment Industry Center should join
involves the contribution of $400,00 which will be used for
Those companies who would like to become members should con426-1363, Lester Geist at 426-7237, or Dexter Fields at
In the future, newsletters and other written communications will only be sent
to companies who have joined the Association.
EDIC/BOSTON
18 TREMONT ST
BOSTON
MA. 02108 617-725-3342
TIlE BOSTON GLOBE
TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 16, 1982 21
'4
* 1~
.4
!R RE41
Officials take a stand for Ch inatown
By Joan Vennochi
Globe Staff
The 12-acre complex that makes up the
Tufts-New England Medical Center is close
to the heart of Boston's Chinatown. The
boundary lines that gave the territory exclusively to Tqfts were drawn more than
15 years ago; a tug-of-war between the.
needs of the Chinese community and the
expansion desires of the institution has
continued since then.
Today, for the first time since the urban renewal years. Boston city officials
have stepped in to give official support to
Chinatown. The city's actions come in the
face of recent expansion efforts by the
Medical Center that the city says threaten
jobs and Industry in Boston.
"Tufts Is making private decisions that
have tremendous implications for the rest
of the city," Robert L. Ryan, the director of
the Boston Redevelopment Authority,
(BRA), said in a recent interview. "We
have taken a stand."
The official population in Chinatown is
about 7500, but officials estimate that the
number of illegal aliens may double the
population. As the population has grown,
tight living quarters and job shortages
have intensified the conflict over the medi-'
cal center's continued expansion.
Today, Chinatown's viability as a'
not a mere commercial disneghborhood,
trict, is threatened by a combination of
private and commercial development In
and aound the community, city officials
and Chinatown spokesmen say.
BRA officials helped draw the boundary lines for Tufts in the mid-1960s. Ever
since then, one BRA official now says. the
belief that the BRA and Tufts "have been
in bed together" has prevailed in Chinatown and elsewhere in the city.
But now, in the aftermath of Tufts'
Circulation:
482,580
spillover into two buildings In China-town's garment. district, and a recently
publicized plan to build a iedical library,
'Ryan said that the city is increasing the
scrutiny given to the medical center's de-.
velopment plans 'and its impact on the:
surrounding community. The garment district buildings at 15 1,
and 35 Kneeland st., which the medical.'
center leased last February with an option
to buy, house 11 apparel companies and
about 600 garment workers.
Since last spring, the city's Economic
Development and Industrial Commission
has been working with the apparel company owners on a plan to relocate to South
Boston.
'City officials fear that if the workers
and companies in the Kneeland street
buildings are forced out of Boston, the garment industry will collapse.
"That's not Just a Chinatown or Tufts'
consideration," said Ryan. "That's a busi-
ness consideration, an economic consideration."
In Chinatown, where the issue of the
medical center's expansion has surfaced
with renewed intensity over the past year,
some community leaders say that time
has come for the community to negotiate
more strongly, and to use city politics for:
more effective leverage in its dealings with
the Medical Center.
."Tufts got most of what it wanted in
the past, because no one said anything,"
said William Chin, the president of the
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assn.. in
a' recent interview. "We (in Chinatown]
don't want the moon; we Jqst want them
to recognize the needs of the Chinese community."
Medical center officials insist that the
institution has been a "go; neighbor" to
Chinatown over the years. As examples,
they cite assistance they have provided in
CHINATOWN. Page 22
a.'.
Officials take a stand for Chinatown
officials havetaken these steps!
* CHINATOWN
0 The directors of two city agenContinued from Page 21 cies - the BRA and the Economic
t'he planning and development
DvlpetadIdsra
oDevelopment and Industrial Corn
of a helhceneadcom it
mission - wrote separate letters
ty
school In Chinatown, as well as the last Octoter to medical center offinearly $1 million they have con- cist 'eriticizing the medical cenlte's
plans to raise rents and even1 tributed to the health center's opertually evict tenants at 15 and 35
ational budget.
dward C. Ehrlich, the melical Knelan st
center's chief administrative offi- Kneeland st.
The BRA letter charged that the
cer, says that politics isat the root
of the city's recent criticisms of the Medical -Center" was violating its
"-6-year-old cooperation agreement
institution's plans.
I attribute that [criticism] to with the city, and threatened to
ithhold approval for future develbeiuig politically responsive. I don't
think they could act in any other opment plans.
In the. cooperation agreement.
faghion," he says. I
To those charges. Ryan says: the medical cehter agreed to "facili
"We are a political body. The may- tate efficient use of land in the area
or 'is the public trustee for the for housing, commercial and instineighborhoods. Our responsibility tutional use" and to "preserve and
strengthen the residential characis to the public."
As a result of new concerns over ter of the area in such a way as to
the impact of the medical center's promote and insure its future."
The Economic Development
most recent expansion plans, city
EDWARD C. EHRLICH
Sees politics in city st ance
-
k
commission'requested i morator-'t
ummon
creases i id evictionsj
um on rent incree
nt plans to
relocate the garmenti ndustry in
South Boston, and said it was "reth t and s
Sou
grettable" thathme dical center
had gone ahead with earlier rent
increases without informing city
officials.
0 Acting on the recommenda-'
tion of the BRA, with support from
the Chinese community, the city's
Zoning Board of Appeals last October changed the procedure that a
hospital must follow to win approv-'
al for expansion for medical use.
The procedure, designed to impose
tighter controls on institutional expansion throughout Boston, requires an independent review and
recommendation for approval from
the BRA before the Zoning Board of
Appeals can approve a variance allowing medical use for a building
lot.
Betore the amendment, approval for such medical expansion was
automatic. BRA officials said that
their support for the amendment
was triggered by the controversy
,over 15 and 35 Kneeland st. The
*medical center's plans for those
two buildings must now be reviewed by the BRA, and approval
.won from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
1 City officials say that they
.want to be kept better informed of
plans for institutional growth, not
only in Chinatown, but throughout
Boston. This position is related to
the extent of tax-exempt property
in Boston and the impact from expansion of tax-exempt institutions
on Boston's tax base, at a time
when the city is facing serious fiscal problems.
The medical center, for example, now makes an annual payment in lieu of taxes under pn
agreement signed with the city in
1979.-The payment, which is based
in part on the number of Boston
residents employed by the Medical
Center, totalled $89,033 last year.
- The impact of the city's tougher
!stance is still uncertain.
For now, the medical center has.
put its plans for Kneeland street on
.hold as it. awaits the findings of a
consultant's report, for which it
donated $10,000, on a proposal to
relocate the entire garment ind4stry to South.Boston. But Tufts' officials say that they will not "throw
any tenants out into the cold."
. The move to acquire the Kn~eland street buildings marks the
first time that the medical center
has looked to property in Chinatown beyond the physical boundaries of the master plan that !it
worked out with the BRA during
the urban renewal years.
. Medical center officials interpret
the agreement .to mean that they
are not restricted to the literal
boundaries of the master plan. .
Ryan agrees that Tufts did not
violate "the letter of law" by acquiring property beyond the master plan, but says the center's "uni-.
lateral action violated the goal of
the cooperation'agreement."
In Chinatown, community lead-,
ers say that the neighborhood has
already lost substantial ground to
Tufts' expansion, and they foresee,
a continugg battle ahead. . 1
-"Maybe
I'm wrong." -said Chin ..
of the Chinese Consolidated Bene-,,
volent Assn.. "but I really don't see .
any benefit to Chinatown. The'
medical center keeps on expand-.
Ing: they keep buying our property.
The minuses outweigh the pluses.",
Ronald Yee, the executive director of the South Cove YMCA and a.
member of the medical center's
,Board of Trustees, says a community failure to maintain open chan-,
nels of communication with Tufts.
over the years has resulted in Chinatown's getting less than It feels it
deserves in employment outreach.
and housing assistance.
"I am sure that given the right
circumstances, the right type of
dinner meetings with the Medical
Center and the community, serious,
negotiations could begin for the.,
mutual benefit of all of us," says
Yee.
In the meantime, Ehrlich of the
medical center said that city officials have been exerting "tremendous" pressure in the effort to force'
changes in the institution's development plans.
Ryan does not deny it. He said
that the city expects Tufts to "ad-.
vise us of the implications of all
their actions."
BRA officials have said that.,
they were again thrown off balance
last December when they learned
from a newspaper article, rather
than from Tufts, of the Medical
Center's plaqs to build a medical Itmillion federal
krary with ai5
grant.
To Ehrlich,"this is another misunderstanding between the MediCal Center and city officials. He
said the city has known since urban renewal -days that a library
was in the offing. Ehrlich says that'
even if he were to change places
with a Chinatown resident: "I
could not see the negative effects [of
the medical center's presence]." He
says that the medical center has
made concessions, such as giving
up land allotted to it under urban
renewal, in the interests of
strengthening the Chinese community,
Ryan said he believes that the
united stand taken over the past
year by Chinatown and by city officials has made Tufts "slow down
and pause and take a look at the
implications of their actions."
For now, he said, he is satisfied
that Tufts "recognizes their participation and effect on industry on.
the city is measurable, and that
our (the BRA's) involvement is not
to Interfere but to preserve."
As for Tufts' future compliance
with its cooperation agreement
with the city. Ryan says: "I'll let
you know when I find out more
about their library."
childcare
and
transportation
affirmative
require
needs,
assistance in order to relocate to jobs outside Chinatown;
WHEREAS,
community
Chinese
the
continuing
economic
strengthen
its
viability
of
in
achieve neighborhood stability and promote
such
the
insure
to
neighborhood,
its
character
residential
seeks
a
and
to
as
to
way
future growth that
is consistent with community needs for housing, employment, and
human services;
WHEREas, the City of Boston seeks to strengthen and expand
its real property tax base, to preserve the viability of the
garment
industry
in
and to facilitate
Boston,
efficient
land
use in Chinatown, South Cove and the Central Business area for
housing, commercial and institutional use;
WHEREAS, all parties involved desire to demonstrate that
complex issues and differences can be resolved through a spirit
of
mutual
cooperation
and
good
faith
commitment
to
work
together;
NOW,
THEREFORE,
the
parties
hereto
mutually
agree
as
follows:
1.
The Medical Center agrees to observe a moratorium on
any evictions, except for just cause, of the present tenants of
15 and 35 Kneeland Street for a period of three years dating
from the signing of this Agreement, or until a satisfactory
development project can be designed and fully implemented.
2.
good
the moratorium, the Medical Center agrees in
During
are reasonably
levels which
at
to maintain rents
faith
based on the actual operating cost of
and the
the buildings
tenants' ability to pay.
3.
parties
The Medical Center agrees to fully cooperate with all
the
in
a
of
implementation
and
planning
viable
development project that is satisfactory to the industry, the
garment
workers,
Medical
Center
compensation
the
to
agrees
negotiate
settlement with the
a
tenants
City.
the
and
community
Chinese
The
displacement
fair
for the
purpose of
assisting them in relocation.
4.
The Medical Center agrees to cooperate with the City,
the Union and the Chinese community in developing plans for the
retraining and employment of garment workers displaced directly
or
indirectly
as, a result of
the
of
relocation
the industry
from 15 and 35 Kneeland Street.
5.
The
City,
through
the
offices
of
the
Economic
Development and Industrial Corporation or any other appropriate
agency, agrees to continue its efforts to stabilize the garment
industry within the City of Boston.
the
combined
efforts
of
the
The City shall coordinate
parties
to
this
Agreement
develop and implement a viable development project.
to
The City
agrees to use its best efforts to explore and obtain suitable
finance and taxation packages to assist the industry.
6.
The
City
agrees
to
convene
a
committee
of
representatives from the Medical Center, the Chinese community,
the
to monitor
Industry
the
and
Union
of
progress
the
the
development project.
The
7.
that
process
Center
sectors
the
through
Redevelopment
Boston
agency,
to
representatives
of
appropriate
together
brings
all
and
other
any
or
Authority
agrees,
City
of the Chinese
community
initiate
a
the
Medical
in
ongoing
discussions regarding the Medical Center's Masterplan, as well
as any developments in the Chinatown/South Cove neighborhoods.
The
purpose
of these
discussions
is
to
generate
a planning
process that would involve the City, the Medical Center and the
entire
Chinese
community in order
to
facilitate
land use
in
Chinatown and South Cove.
8.
The Industry agrees to work with the various parties
in planning and implementing a development project.
9.
The Union
agrees
to
cooperate with
all
parties
in
carrying out the terms of this Agreement and the workforce, and
by
keeping
its
members
informed
of
the
progress
of
the
development project.
10.
The Chinese community agrees to cooperate and assist
in the design and implementation of the development plan, to
inform the community-at-large of its progress, and to assist in
monitoring its progress and the terms of this Agreement.
-1" / 4
r
F1b: -A
6ston Army Base;
rare Feet for Lease
Thirty-five garment companies will be moving to
the South Boston Army Base next summer. They
will fill nearly half of one of the largest industrial
buildings in the metropolitan area- Building 114.
EDIC's development of the 1.6 million square foot
complex is underway. A federal grant isin place,
and engineering work has begun. Two hundred
thousand square feet of commercial and industrial
space is still available for lease and EDIC issigning tenants now for 1983 occupancy.
The first phase of development at Building 114 includes a garment center. That iswelcome news
for the City's second largest industry, which has
been threatened by office and condominium development in Chinatown. The center will save
thousands of jobs and keep the City's largest apparel firms from leaving town.
u]
We've got
space.
TM MOUTONAMdIVRAE
666SummerStreet
200,000SquareFeet- Renovated
Commercialand Industrial
Uses
Renovations
Inciude.:
-New utiliies
12newpasseng andfreightelevators
Off-streettrucki&oading
Convenientwaterirontlocation
24-toursecurity
Long-tetrm
leases
Rentsstar?at 275/SF
taxes.
Now leasing for 1683
Catl JaneDonnelly6171725-3342
including
EDIOIDOSTON
111111
An Industrial Renaissance. On October 1,
Boston Mayor Kevin H. White announced a $3.7
million Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG)from HUD for the creation of the garment center.
U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts
Senate President William Bulger and 100 business.
banking and community representatives joined the
Mayor in making the announcement. Both Mayor
White and Senator Kennedy acknowledged the
extraordinary contribution of U.S. Representative
John Joseph Moakley in helping the project succeed. U.S. House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
and U.S. Senator Paul E. Tsongas were also
credited for their work.
Mayor White called the garment center a
"renaissance"for the City's apparel industry. He
said the project isan excellent example of the
public-private partnership that isserving the
neighborhoods of Boston so well."
"The garment industry has a proud history in
Boston," said Senator Kennedy. The Senator used
the opportunity to support the UDAG program and
to voice his opposition to Reagan administration
proposals to cut funding for it. "Projects like the
garment center are proof of the value of the UDAG
program," he said.
Innovative Financing. The UDAG is just a part of
the $14.7 million financial package which EDIC
has assembled for the development of the garment center.
1
The largest portion of the money will come from a
HUD Section 108 loan an~d a $4.5 million industrial
revenue bond backed by State Street Bank and
Shawmut Bank. "Both banks have been extremely
supportive of this project," said EDIC Director
Brian Dacey. "William Edgerlv, the President and
Street Ban and John LaWare.
Chairman of
the hairman of Shawmut ank are clearly committed to manufacturing growth in the City."
Several million dollars in private investment and a
loan from the Massachusetts Government Land
Bank will also help finance the project. Garment
companies moving into the Army Base have committed a total of one million dollars for their own
building improvements, and a Massachusetts
Public Works grant of $600.000 will pay for road
repairs.
Building Sale Difficult. Without a doubt. the
most difficult aspect of the garment center project
was negotiating the sale of the Army Base with the
U.S. General Services Administration. The GSA
had appraised the property at $4.1 million. EDIC's
independent appraisal put the value at $1.5
million, and the final price was $3.5 million. "We
were facing extraordinary timing pressures." said
Dacey. "The garment companies have to move
from their present locations by next summer. The
financing had to be in place so we could start
renovations in January. and have the building
ready in time for the companies to move in.
However, HUD had said that it would not even
consider our grant application until a sale agreement was reached. We had less than two months
to make a deal."
(Continued on page 5)
The Boston Army Base:
Putting It All Together
.
.
.
24
Above right:
On October 1,the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
awarded EDIC a $3.7 million UDAG.
The grant is part of a $14.7 million
financial package needed to buy
and develop the Army Base.
On the day of the grant announcement, U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy spoke about the "long and
proud history of Boston's garment
industry, and congratulated the City
on its plan to keep the industry here.
Top left.
Last March, Chinatown garment
workers toured the Army Base for
the first time. Months before, Urban
Consulting Associates, Inc. surveyed workers on their day care and
transportation needs. Company
owners were also questioned about
space requirements and electrical
demands.
Above:
In July, the Boston City Council approved EDIC's application for an Urban Development Action Grant
(UDAG) for the garment center.
Councillors Bruce Bolling (left),
Chairman of the Committee for Planning and Development and Terrence McDermott (right) heard
testimony from Chinatown and
South Boston community groups,
Massport, the International Ladies
Garment Workers' Union, company
owners, the Boston Redevelopment
Authority and the U.S. Congressional delegation.
-n
Above:
Massachusetts Transportation
Secretary James Carlin (center) and
State Senate President William
Bulger sign a $600,000 Public
Works Grant for road repairs at the
Army Base. At left is State
Representative Michael Flaherty.
Right:
U.S. Representative John Joseph
Moakley hasbeen vital to the garment center project since its inception more than a year ago. Here, in
his Washingtonoffice, Moakley
meets withMarilyn Swartz Lloyd,
EDIC Directw of Ma 'k(g and
Developrpnti-hd Droly fftberich,
EDIC Projeci~fanager for the Army
Base.
. .
"
4
Boston Army Base
(Continued from page 1)
"These were exhaustive negotiations," he continued. "There were times when the temptation to
walk away was overwhelming. But we were so
committed to this project that the thought of abandoning it, after we'd come so far, was virtually
unthinkable."
Community Supports Project. This summer, the
Boston community got a chance to voice its opinions dn the garment center during public hearings
in Chinatown and before the City Council.
Chinatown community representatives support the
project, but they do worry about the overall effect
it will have on workers. Many have lived and
worked in the Chinatown community all their lives,
and a move to the Army Base won't be easy.
The Army Base isonly a half mile from Chinatown,
but transportation isa big concern. EDIC is working with the MBTA to provide more bus service to
Top:
Boston Mayor Kevin H. White talks
to reporters following the UDAG announcement. Mayor White called
the new garment center a "renaissance for the City's apparel
industry.
Above:
EDIC Director Brian F. Dacey thanks
business, banking and community
representatives for their help in obtaining the UDAG. Behind Dacey
are Frank Bronstein (far left), Chairman of the EDIC Board of Directors
and State Representative James
Brett.
Right:
After the grant announcement,
EDIC's Mary Murphy, Dan Fishbein
and Joe Valle celebrate at the China
Pearl restaurant with project participants. The China Pearl's owner is
Bill Chin, President of the Chinese
Consolidated Benevolent Association, a group which has been very
active in the development of the
garment center. Fishbein coordinated the garment companies
throughout the project.
Pnoto oy
5
rian smith
the Base, and garment companies are considering a shuttle bus for employees.
"The Army Base isthe best thing that has ever
happened to Boston's garment industry," said
Allen Couris, President of Flair of Boston. "Now
we'll have a permanent home, where we won't
have to worry about being squeezed out by commercial development and high rents. I, for one, am
going to be a tenant."
Landlords Cooperate. The New England
Medical Center has always played a critical role in
the development of the garment center. New
England Medical owns two Chinatown buildings,
15 and 35 Kneeland Street, which house many of
the City's largest apparel firms. The medical center
had planned to convert the buildings to much
needed office and medical space more than a
year ago, but delayed its project until plans for the
Army Base were completed.
Other landlords in the Chinatown area haven't
been as supportive. More than 50 companies are
threatened with drastic rent increases or evictions;
seven firms have already been forced to leave the
city.
Renovations Begin. The target date for the
opening of Building 114 and the garment center is
the summer of 1983. Before then, much work will
be done.
EDIC will spend more than $13 million to improve
the building. Renovations include a new electrical
system and 12 new passenger and freight elevators. Although the actual construction won't begin
until January, the engineering firm of Sverdrup &
Parcel and Associates, Inc. has begun drawing up
plans. Wallace, Floyd, Associates, Inc. are the
architects.
"The Boston Army Base could become the Quincy
Market of industrial parks,"-said Marilyn Swartz
Lloyd, Director of Marketing and Development for
EDIC. "The waterfront location is beautiful and full
of activity, and the building has an exciting range
of development possibilities."
Companies interested in leasing space at the Army Base should call Jane Donnelly at EDIC, (617)
725-3342.
I
APPENDIX II
Economic Development and Industrial Corporation of Boston
18 Tremont St./Suite 300/Boston, MA 02108/617 725-3342
REASONS WHY ALTERNATIVE BOSTON LOCATIONS TO THE ARMY BASE ARE NOT FEASIBLE
FOR THE GARMENT INDUSTRY
Many potential new locations for Boston garment companies have been identified
by EDIC. However, the Boston Army Base has been the only feasible location for
nearly all the companies requesting assistance.
Lists of 18 sites most likely to be suited to garment industry needs were prepared
and distributed to companies requesting assistance in February, 1981.
The lists
were updated and redistributed three times. The sites on the lists are mainly
multi-tenant industrial buildings with market rate rents or below.
The major concerns of the companies in selecting a new location have been:
*Accessibility of the sites to the- existing mainly Asian workforce.
(Most companies would only consider the neighborhoods closest to
Chinatown: the South End, South Boston, and Charlestown. Some
expressed interest in Allston/Brighton which has a large Asian
community).
*Costs associated with rent, acquisition or development.
*Condition, lay-out, and utility services offered (companies wanted
large, open areas, high electrical service, good elevator service).
*Proximity to other garment companies (many of the companies buy
and sell goods from/to each other. Both workers and owners place
an unusually high premium on the social interaction which has
resulted from close proximity).
*Worker safety: most employees are women and their safety walking to
and from work has been of great concern.
*Availability of the new location on a long-term basis (many company
presidents will pass ownership on to their sons).
A copy
Sites were selected for the lists which most nearly satisfied these concerns.
of the February, 1981 list of sites for the garment industry and the updated December,
1981 list which contained some newly identified sites are attached. The reasons why
each location proved unfeasible are listed below:
FEBRUARY, 1981
SOUTH END
1. 464 Harrison Avenue
Building is divided into 5,000 SF bays which are not large enough for most
companies.
Building not well maintained and area is unsafe as many alcoholics
stand or sleep on surrounding sidewalks.
alcoholics is 1 block away).
(The Pine Street Inn, a home for
Kevin H. White, Mayor
0
-22. 500 Harrison Avenue
Building is divided into 5,000 SF bays which is not large enough for most
companies. Building not well maintained and area is unsafe as many alcoholics
stand or sleep on surrounding sidewalks. (The Pine Street Inn, a home for
alcoholics is 1 block away).
3. 421-422 Harrison Avenue
EDIC helped some of the companies investigate the cost of new construction
on this site. This option proved too costly.
4. Relief Printing
Only enough room available for 1 or 2 companies.
nearby.
Home for alcoholics is
5. China Fair
Building is in disrepair; high crime area.
6. Neptune Garment Building
Space available limited and served by one small elevator with no off-street
loading. Company owners could not agree on terms with building owner.
7. 560 Harrison Avenue
Near a high crime area, and the rent was initially too high for most companies.
SOUTH BOSTON
1. BMIP Storage Area
EDIC hired an architect and obtained cost estimates for the construction of
a new garment center on this site. The land area was not large enough for
all the relocating companies to be on one floor. Adding floors necessitates
extensive foundation work due to the poor condition of the soil. This option
proved too costly.
2. Fargo Building
Building is in disrepair and long-term leases are not available.
However,
two companies, one of whom was being evicted, did move to this building for
the short run.
3. Boston Army Base
Being considered; project depends on UDAG financing.
4. Milin Realty
Building needs substantial improvement and is distant from Chinatown without
public transportation on the adjacent street.
5. Davidson Property
Distant from Chinatown without public transportation on the adjacent street.
6. EVR Realty Property
Too distant and has no public transportation in immediate area.
Space not
available on a leased basis.
7. Stop and Shop
A group of companies considered purchasing this building, but another company
bought it before an offer could be made.
18 Tremont St./Suite 300/Boston, MA 02108/617 725-3342
-3CHARLESTOWN
1. Navy Yard
Project requires a developer with substantial experience to prepare a proposal
for the Boston Redevelopment Authority and rehabilitate a building. Many
companies did not want to move to Charlestown.
2. MBTA Property
Same construction cost problem as BMIP Storage Area.
3. Terminal Street
Project requires substantial building rehabilitation and possibly demolition
and new construction. Costs would be at least comparable to new construction.
Public transportation not available on adjacent street.
4. Hoosac Pier
Massport sold this pier to an office building developer.
DECEMBER, 1981
SOUTH END
1.
Fidelity Building
Building needs substantial rehabilitation and could only house 1-2 companies.
It is also near the Pine Street Inn.SOUTH BOSTON
1. BMIP Entrance
Construction cost problem same as BMIP Storage Area.
NEWMARKET
1. Mr. Boston Building
Too distant from Chinatown.
ALLSTON
1. Mercedes Benz Garage
Only limited space available.
Rent higher than most Boston sites.
2. Guardian Building
Cost is high for most companies, and space is available for only 1 company.
18 Tremont St./Suite 300/Boston, MA 02108/617 725-3342
31
C/
oston1
BOSTON GARMENT DISTRICT PROJECT
COST ESTIMATES FOR NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
The Economic Development and Industrial Corporation of Boston (EDIC/Boston)
with the assistance of Arnold A. Jacobsen and Associates has developed schematic
designs for several garment center building alternatives using the survey data
pertaining to company space requirements. Computer tabulated estimates of construction costs were obtained for these designs. The attached information shows
the results of this work.
Eight different building designs were investigated, as cost estimates were
obtained for concrete block wall construction and metal exterior wall construction
for four alternative buildings. On the attached sheet, the building options listed
as A and B could accomodate 16 companies who showed a strong interest in the
Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP). Options C and D are alternatives that could
handle 30 companies who were interested in a garment center building. To maximize
the economies of scale another floor was added to the building design in Options
E and F. Five companies who were interested in a South End location were considered
in developing Options G and H.
Soil borings done at the proposed site at the BMIP indicated a need for foundation pilings. This explains the high estimated foundation cost for the proposed
BMIP alternatives, Although boring tests were not undertaken in the South End, it
is likely that soil conditions resemble those at the BMIP.
On the basis of the survey results, several assumptions were made in developing
these building options. The interior walls of the factory and warehouse space
were left in an unfinished condition. Any office space had a hung ceiling and air
conditioning (no other space had air conditioning). It was estimated that 25 per
cent of the wall space contained windows. Ceiling heights of 12' were provided
for except in a 50,000 S.F. section of the BMIP building where 20' heights were
provided for the benefit of leather goods wholesalers. All buildings were insulated.
The cost of the building could be lowered by reducing the number of windows,
bathrooms, elevators, or loading docks. Air conditioned production space, panelling,
or private bathrooms would increase the cost. A conceptual view of a proposed
bui ding at the BMIP is attached.
Using financing options available through EDIC/Boston, the amortized cost of
the building with heat and maintenance costs would be approximately $5.90 per S.F.
annually excluding taxes and ground rent. These options include industrial revenue
bond financing at 13.5% interest, targeted revolving loan fund financing at 10.5%
interest and a Community Development Block Grant used as a loan with no interest
required. A detailed explanation of how this cost was tabulated is also attached.
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
18 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108 / (617) 725-3342
11,HC/Bo41stonl
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
GARMENT CENTER AT BOSTON MARINE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Option B
Total building construction cost:
Revenue generated by 6,000 SF cafeteria:
$12,704,000
Building cost less rental revenue:
$12,668,000
36,000
Financing
- Industrial Revenue Bond Amount:
$11,068,000
Term:
Interest:
Annual payment:
Cost PEr SF leasable space:
-
20 years
13.5%
$1,609,323
$4.79
Targeted Revolving Loan Fund Amount:
$600,000
Term:
20 years
Interest:
Annual payment:
Cost per SF leasable space:
-
10.5%
$71,883
$ .21
Community Development Block Grant
Amount: ~ $1,000,000
Term: 20 years
Interest: 0%
$50,000
Annual payment:
Cost per SF leasable space:
$.15
Estimated maintenance and heating cost per
SF of leasable space
$.75
Total annual cost per leasable SF
$5.90
*~.""l.18
Kevin H. White, Mayor/Economic Development & Industrial Corporation of Boston
Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108 / (617) 725-3342
BOSTON GARMENT DISTRICT PROJECT
COST ESTIMATES FOR NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
OPTION
AREA IN
1 000 SF
NET GROSS
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATOR
F
P
BMIP-A
16
companies
336
400
Two story steel frame
w/concrete block walls
4
BMIP-B
336
400
Two story pre-engineered
4
16
companies
BUILDING COSTS IN
$ THOUSANDS
-
11,870
45
2,250
-
10,410
frame w/metal exterior
walls
building
site prep.
foundation
14,165
$ C ST /SF
GROSS
NET LEASABLE
AREA .SPACE
35.41
42.16
31.76
37.81
34.40
40.96
32.06
38.17
35.7
42.5
30.5
36.3
45
?,250
12,705
BMIP-C
30
483
575
companies
BMIP-D
30
Three story steel frame
w/concrete block walls
4
2
17,080
45
2,250
483
575
companies
Three story preengineered frame w/metal
19,785
4
2
exterior walls
16,142
45
2,250
18,437
BMIP-E
630
750
additional
floor
Four story steel frame
6
4
w/concrete block walls
24,485
45
2.250
26.780
BMIP-F
630
750
Four story preengineered frame w/metal
exterior walls
6
4
20,574
45
2, 250
22,869
PREPARED BY:
Arnold A. Jacobson and Associates
for EDIC/Boston