This is a sad decision for Boston. More shadows, more wind, more traffic, more housing for the very rich and the expense of the middle class. Even the Mayor's own Park and Recreation Commission pointed out the terrible impact this new tower will have on Copley Square,

I am thrilled with this decision. This tower is absolutely the right choice for the right location, in my opinion. The jobs this construction project will provide are so needed.
The addition to the skyline moves Boston from provincial to world-class. Cities cannot stand still. They either grow or decay ... thank you for choosing life!

Another example of the BRA doing whatever it wants in the name of the all mighty dollar, without regard to neighboring residents. Sad, but not surprising at all.

Vote on South End building heights here:
http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a6c01a490-c7ba-4966-9f40-dee114ec90afForum%3a894b6cc8-96d2-4bba-aab2-04ea5968ee11Discussion%3a2958f07e-7e18-4161-83aa-1fa4f25dab48

I think this is a fantastic redesign of a poorly designed corner of our urban landscape (and I used to work for the architecture firm that originally designed Copley Place in the 80s). I echo the sentiments, however, of others who believe as I do that affordable units do not have to be promised elsewhere and must be included in any project on site. I live in a mixed affordable/market development and the vibrancy of our residential community because of that mix is an example of the vitality necessary for any successful urban neighborhood. Shave a small amount off the profit for the developer and include those affordable units on site. I wish the BRA and mayor would move developments like these forward but hold the line on inclusion of the units. Ultimately, I'm glad to see this project approved but hope the next time we keep (and increase) the affordable units on site.

The tower will throw two more hours of shadow onto Copley Square every day from October to March. How is this good urban design?

I am in favor of the project. We live in a city... Why are people so concerned with shadows? The affordable housing component is may be small, but anyone taking a risk to build this is providing money to those middle class construction workers who will hopefully continue to live in their own affordable housing and will not lose them to foreclosure.

Walter - would you want you home covered in darkness during the day, your existing sunlight blocked? Have some empathy for the people who live next to the planned skyscraper.

This is an absolutely beautiful tower, I am very glad it's moving forward, I live 2 blocks away and I'm not worried about some small shadows

I agree with Thomas thank you for not being afraid of the future and not being stuck in the past, a wonderful addition to Boston and a perfect spot for height, it's a A+,

Bet you'd both sing a different tune if you lived next to it.

This is a sad decision only for the build nothing-nowhere-now-that-I'm-here crowd that reflexively rejects everything from a single family home on a vacant lot to a condominium tower over an office and shopping complex across from a multi-modal transit station. This is an excellent project in a suitable location, not the abomination decried by its opponents who would rather live in Colonial-Williamsburg-on-the-Charles. Boston is among the most desirable of American cities and, because people want to live and work here, there must be some way some where for it to grow. My compliment to the B.R.A. for recognizing the economic benefits and giving its consent.

Nobody said to build nothing. Just something of reasonable, proportional size. Maybe 20-30 stories instead of 47?

As several have commented, nobody said to build nothing. This is NOT really an "either-or" proposition, And those of us who have been "around the block" with 131 Dartmouth Street and, particularly, Columbus Center and numerous other projects are well aware that the BRA is perfectly willing to rubber-stamp developer documents that have only incidental relationship to reality and has no real willingness to insist that MAJOR developers live up to their commitments. (When it comes to small-scale developers, that's a different story. But the big-timers? Care to look at where Filene's used to be?)

Quite possibly, I misread the project document, but it looked to me that the developer plans to add exactly ZERO parking spaces. And possibly the developer has planned a much better approach to dealing with wind than would have been the case with Columbus Center. The BRA did not bother noticing that according to its own documentation, that project would have created street-level winds meriting National Weather Service Small Craft Warnings for many months of the year.

Incidentally, I do not recall seeing if ANY of the 318 units have more than two bedrooms, which is a practical necessity should any of the likely 1% living there end up with more than one child, especially if those children are of different sexes. Housing, regardless of income level, that does not permit the growth of families is not a way to promote stability of a neighborhood.

Just when we need every minute of sunlight in public open spaces, the BRA approves a project which will further shade Copley Square from late autumn until early spring. An agency that can declare the area around Fenway Park "blighted" to give the Red Sox a sweet deal at the expense of the taxpayers has plenty of gall and little credibility. The BRA, created to administer the federal government's urban
slum clearance initiative, is an artifact of another time. Boston residents deserve an elected planning board to balance the BRA's development focus. That will take a campaign to change state law. Separation of planning and development is an idea ripe for debate in a mayoral election year.
Carolyn A. Gritter
former president, Ellis Neighborhood Association
former member of Copley Place CAC
former member of PruPac
former member of Back Bay/South End Station CAC

The proponents of this project sound like sycophants of city hall, ignorant of the core issues involved, with a less-than superficial understanding of the true threats it poses to the neighborhood & our 'commons'. The opponents have a clear, altruistic, pragmatic, compassion, articulate, & community-oriented grasp of the issues: thoughtless, greedy, arrogant, commercial & corporate expansion into our neighborhoods without community input, aided & abetted by an out-of-touch, arrogant—& vindictive when opposed—City Hall. The concerned citizenry are yet again being railroaded by a corrupt train of greed & speculation, enabled by city hall (who administration has obviously been in power far too long, thus the corruption), an impotent city council (which fears &/or has been co-opted by the aforementioned political-city-hall-machine), & a BRA that does it's master's (City Hall) bidding. We need more hearings, as well as organized protests, demonstrations, & an 'occupy-Copley-Place', since the people clearly possess the vision their leaders lack, blinded as they are by the glamours of power & greed. People Power is what we need, to ensure that justice is served, & the community's voice is heard & heeded.

Extremely well said, Carolyn, Ed, and David. I couldn't have articulated the facts better myself.

I'd like to know the income level of those that live next to this project and object to it. I don't know any "99%er" who lives in this area of Boston. I am a professional who works in Boston but cannot afford to live in the city due to costs driven in large part by lack of housing. Additional units can eventually make the city more affordable and accessible to people. It would appear to me that those who oppose such projects are really looking out for themselves under the disguise of fighting for the 99%. There are many more "1%ers" living in Copley than there are 99%ers. Please drop the tired argument. If you are trying to preserve your own view just say so. It's more respectable than hijacking a grassroots movement for you own personal gain.

Boston Young Professional: The residents of Tent City live directly next to the proposed tower. Tent City is comprised entirely of affordable housing units. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know any of these 99%.

I hope folks can remain civil even on both sides of this argument. Disparaging someone else's opinion tends to undermine one's own position I believe. Also, for accuracy The Community Builders, Inc. website describes Tent City as a great model of *mixed* income rather than entirely affordable as follows, "When Tent City was developed, no subsidies for moderate income residents existed. TCB worked with the local government to create subsidies for those with moderate incomes and ensured that Tent City could support these residents. Through TCB’s efforts, Tent City became a national model of mixed-income housing, with 1/4 of its units reserved for low-income tenants, 1/2 moderate and 1/4 market-rate. TCB also secured funding from more than fourteen sources, including tax credit equity investors and the innovative use of an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) repayment loan that guaranteed $30 million over 30 years would flow from nearby Copley Place into Tent City.
This three-acre development is now home to 269 mixed-income families whose ethnic mix reflects that of the South End. Priority for subsidized units is given, in order, to people displaced by public action, South End residents and people living in substandard housing." http://www.tcbinc.org/what_we_do/projects/tent_city.htm
Perhaps there is an opportunity to continue to work with the developer and the city add some affordable options to this development as well.

Jim, thanks for the clarification and agreed about remaining civil on this site. I apologize if any of my comments came across as disparaging.

What perhaps should also be mentioned is that U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit Judge Breyer's June 13, 1983 decision in the Munoz-Mendoza vs. Pierce court case regarding Copley Place project's UDAG states:

"The following facts are not in dispute. In April 1980, the city of Boston asked HUD for an Urban Development Action Grant ("UDAG") to help it and private developers build Copley Place . This $450 million commercial project in downtown Boston will contain three million square feet of space, and will include a 712-room luxury hotel, a 960-room convention hotel, retail facilities, office space, parking facilities, and 100 to 150 units of housing, 25 percent of which will be subsidized and reserved for low-income tenants. The project is being built on 9.5 acres of previously vacant land next to the Massachusetts Turnpike, near the neighborhoods of Back Bay, Fenway, the South End, South Cove, and Chinatown ..." No legal authorization was ever given by the federal court to reconstruct the Copley Place project by adding luxury residential units in a 47-story skyscraper, in a way that reduces percentage of low-income units to below 25%. Overdeveloping neighborhood with skyscrapers filled with more unsold luxury condos will tend to increase rents and homeowner taxes in neighborhood. Simon family (worth over $2 billion) shouldn't be allowed to turn Back Bay/South End neighborhood into a "big-dig-like" construction site for 3 years (a bigger site than Berklee's mass ave one).

Anything under 40 stories is not sufficient for that area, it deserved to be about 100 ft taller instead of another 20-30 story stump tower that nobody in this great world would want, I used to live in Dallas and they would start at 30 stories and the residents would actually say don't u think an additional 10 or 15 floors would be better, it's so different down there, here I feel like there r people mad at Boston and trying to hold it back

I am pleased to here there putting affordable housing on site, also like I've said I walk these streets everyday, I am in total favor of this tower, bc of this I have an additional 20 min shadow, that's ok bc I want my Boston to grow, I'm sorry but some of these arguments against it r a bunch of crap, I'm so happy that the bra and Simon properties is groundbreaking in Aug/Sept 2012, have a great day everyone :)

Carolyn,

Do you understand the concepts of scale and density? Boston can and should be a more vibrant city and the inclusion of large numbers of new residents across from a transit station in an already high rise district is exactly the correct approach.

The older residents of our neighborhoods want to preserve a lower-density vision of Boston that is driving out young people. Have you ever traveled to other cities? Have you seen how high density residential development has been improving other cities and making them more desirable?

Your classification of developers as greedy evildoers is the oldest trick in the Boston growth-fighters handbook. Maybe some people believe that large-scale new development is only good for a developer's bottom line, but many of us believe it is also good for our city. I for one, live in a city to be near other people and businesses. I am not scared of my neighbors. I welcome them. Maybe they will be wealthy and will not have kids, but that is OK. If we are truly open-minded we won't judge them and try to keep them out. If we do then we may as well be a snooty suburb.

By the way, I am an urban planner. So don't try to accuse me of ignorance of the concepts of scale and density. Your arguments will have to stand on their own, and ad hominem attacks won't be able to fill in for real logic.

And for those of us who reflexively quote Jane Jacobs as the Gospel according to Jane, think about this: The West Village that she so vigorously defended is no so expensive that it is only available to celebrities and hedge fund managers. Is this a coincidence, or a natural result of anti-density zealots blocking the creation of new housing in desirable neighborhoods?

We are fortunate to have a development site like the one at Copley that will allow us to increase density, relieve development pressure, and open our amazing slice of the city up to more people.

The Copley Tower is not a Robert Moses highway or the second coming of the Southwest Expressway. It is a place for people to live. History will not view the NIMBY forces trying to block new homes from getting built, in an environmentally-friendly, anti-sprawl fashion, kindly.

Huh?

Carolyn,

Just to be clear, are we still talking about the construction of one apartment building, which would necessitate the demolition only of Nieman Marcus (which would then be rebuilt)? If so, why are you bringing up the wholesale destruction of the West End? I don't see the parallel, and I wonder if you're so used to anti-growth scare tactics that don't hold water, that you're not even aware of when you're using them?

In your comment, you said that someone who supports this project doesn't "understand the concepts of scale and density." That to me indicates your belief that the only supporters of this project are naive or uninformed. I am neither, and was simply pointing out that you'll have to do a better job of explaining your position if you hope to be taken seriously.

Development does not have to be a zero sum game, you're right. In some cases, developers win by making money, and the neighborhood wins by welcoming new neighbors and the vitality they bring. That is what's happening here.

Alex: I'm baffled by your attack and by your concerted effort to miss my point. I haven't commented on any aspect of the proposed development. My point, and I'll say it again, as you seem to be one of those people who requires repetition to get a message. I think citizen review is vital and healthy for urban development. What you call bickering, might be, in someone else's view, a lively exchange of ideas. I, too, have heard wacky opinions in community meetings, but silly or uninformed view points don't invalidate the process. I don't know where you got the idea that citizen review equates with downscaled development. The process might be messy and you may not like the outcome, but the same can be said of small "d" democracy, too. What everyone who loves Boston wants is a healthy, thriving, and vital city in which to live. Unlike you, Alex, I don't discourage or disparage citizen participation in development review, nor do I think those who take part are illogical or naive. On the contrary, I'm glad residents care enough about the city to be citizen advocates and mix it up with the so-called experts. Thank you for your comments. We wouldn't want to live in a country where we couldn't have a respectful exchange of ideas, would we, Alex. I stress the "respectful" part.

Carolyn: Let's not forget that this exchange started with me questioning why you attacked another commenter for not "understanding the concepts of scale and density." Life must be hard when the world just attacks you for no reason while you mind your own business. I feel for you.

Alex, we need to be careful not to generalize--the new luxury condos may not be the answer to the problem of insufficient housing. In Back Bay, our density has gone down because of the new construction. Many of the new high-priced units are being bought as investments or as pieds-a-terre, which doesnt help create a stable neighborhood. Would that the banks could see their way to supporting moderate income housing!

Where is the demand going to come from for these units - it's possible this project individually will be a success, although without much parking there are serious questions about that - but there are 1000 luxury downtown units already under construction (mostly rental) and 1700 scheduled to break ground in 2012 (including this). With annual downtown luxury demand in "normal" times running at maybe 240 units per year, that's a 10-15 year supply coming on the market over just a two year span. The Clarendon is selling/renting only a handful of units a month and now we are stretching the limits of zoning to build more units. If this project makes sense in the first place, it probably only makes sense at half the size at most.

I don't understand how this is going to solve the housing problem, Alex - how much are these units going to sell/rent for? I would hazzard a guess that most of them will be in the $600/sq ft. range, or rent for more than $1500/month? At best, that's $600k for little over 1k sq ft.... and I don't know many people that could live in that small of a place while raising a family. I also don't know many people that can afford a bigger, more expensive place in the city, have kids, pay for parking,daycare,etc.... so it just pushes them out into the burbs. And what about parking?? Saying that this is a great solution to the housing problem is quiet naive if there isn't also a solution to the enevitable shortage of parking spots and stickers that will be needed.

And if people want to live in the city so desperately, and there is such a shortage of housing... why are there so many units for sale/rent within a 3 block radius of Copley Square? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for development and progressive thinking, but at what point does it become too much or the wrong thing? Why not build a smaller structure, add some small business storefronts and a parking for the neighborhood? Do people ever NOT come to the city and shop, dine or stay at the hotels because they can't park? I know plenty of people that would rather drive to North Shore Mall. If the goal is push Boston to the next level and not have it become a "dying" city, then does it make sense to add more small businesses, create more jobs so that people can stimulate the economy and actually help it grow? Seems to me, that having another building full of empty apartments does more to add to the "dying" city aspect than doing nothing at all.

One of the more interesting comments that was made was that Simon wants to "upgrade" the stores at Copley Place. A laudable goal, surely, but how much more upscale can you go? Neiman Marcus wants to expand to a flagship store, but it doesnt want to close down in order to do the renovations - that is why they are pushing into the public realm.

Virtually every single person who studies the housing market in Boston attributes the insane prices to one thing: lack of supply, and inability to build new supply. That inability stems from a number of factors, including scarcity of land. But there is ONE factor that is controllable, and that is widespread, consistent opposition to the creation of new housing. This building will not in and of itself solve the housing crisis, but the opposition to it is indicative of the larger problem, that people unite in opposition to major development that will add supply. As for units for sale rent nearby, are you trying to say that there is not demand for housing in that neighborhood? Have you talked to anyone who knows anything about the demand there? It's at pre-recession levels. It's undeniable. As for building parking instead of housing, that's an idea that was popular in the '60s, and something we've been trying to correct since then.

As far as "another building full of empty apartments," here is a little primer on real estate development: when a developer wants to build something, he or she is risking a lot of his/her own money. As a result, he/she carefully studies the market to see if there is demand, based mostly on occupancy in comparable properties. Then he/she goes to the bank, which is also risking huge amounts of money, and also carefully studies the market. Do you think that your anecdotal evidence of apartments that no one wants to live in are more reliable than the great lengths that these institutions go to to protect their investments? It is true that these investments go wrong all the time, but that is because the market changes, not because it is a terrible market to begin with. You can argue that banks and developers frequently make bad decisions for the community, but if the market is as bad as you claim, that would mean they are recklessly throwing their money away, and that is something that they do not do, no matter how evil they are. I believe banks are evil, but not necessarily developers.

As for the idea to build moderate-priced housing, let's do it! Making housing more affordable is my life's work, and I wish there were more money to do that. But there isn't. So the next best thing is to add these units, which, by nearly-incontrovertible laws of economics, will relieve the housing shortage and bring prices down.

I am sorry if my tone is grating, but the comments on this page are from people who are uninformed about how urban planning and real estate work. If I went onto a gardening, or animal husbandry, or something else that I know nothing about, blog and started spouting uninformed opinions based on my gut and nothing else, I'd expect a less-than-welcoming reaction, too.

You don't have to be a developer to understand how real estate works. We looked for a home in Boston for nearly a year; we ALSO carefully studied the market, looked at past home sales, comps in the neighborhoods and demand in the area should we ever decide to sell. We ALSO risked a lot of our own money - ultimately deciding to take a "risk" in the city.

Jodi, why not just buy one of the myriad vacant apartments that exist all around Copley that you were telling us about? You know, the ones that exist because there is no demand for housing? I'm sure they could have been snatched up for a song. Right?

I'm sure you're all very nice people, but this is clearly a waste of time for all of us. I wish you well. I feel like I'm dealing with a group of Tea Partiers, unconstrained by reality, only their uninformed feelings.

I'll leave you with a quote from the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Alex - clearly you aren't reading my post correctly - I DID buy an apartment in the neighborhood. I never said there wasn't a demand for housing - but your logic of building a massive apartment complex with no parking doesn't solve the problem.

I love how you automatically assume that I'm a Tea Partier because I dare to disagree with you or challenge your thoughts. Wow - what an insightful comment.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

1. I know you bought an apartment, but I was saying I'd assume it was inexpensive because we have so much vacancy, and so little demand. Right?

2. I did not assume you were a Tea Partier. I said that the logic on this board is similar to the logic that is common in the Tea Party, namely that we should ignore facts just because we feel something is right or wrong. Ignore the facts showing strong housing demand because we feel like there isn't. Ignore the fact that apartments without parking will sell, because we feel like that can't be possible. I have no idea about your political leanings, I was just commenting on your approach to logic.

3. You caught me, I am sniping at you from some distant suburb. Just kidding! I live in the South End, about a quarter mile from the neighborhood-destroying monolith that will sit vacant and ruin our lives.

Alex thank you for your primer. Unfortunately I suggest you read the textbook and the data that support it. The annual incremental demand for housing units citywide over the past 10 years is 1200 units per year according to the US census bureau. Given that we are still absorbing some of the units that were overbuilt around 2007 and 2008, it may actually be a little bit less. Fortunately the financial crisis hit when it did or we would be looking at about a thousand empty luxury condominiums today in the city and the fallout from a plummeting luxury market would be catastrophic for the city. The reason taxes are low in places like JP, Rozzie and WR is because commercial and luxury residential pay the bulk of the taxes. If the values of those fall (like commercial did in the middle of the last decade), those taxes still have to be paid and you could easily see 50% tax increases in the outer neighborhoods. You think the foreclosure crisis is bad now? Tell these people on a few week's notice they have to come up with $2000-3000 extra to pay their taxes next year and see what happens.

As for demand, it is possible this project will be successful - although the two flies in the ointment are a) no parking and b) the engineering of this project is so complex it may never happen anyway. This city has a long track record of overdeveloping - condos in the 80's, offices in the 90's and luxury condos in the '00s. This looks like another verse of the same song.

Here are the numbers - as noted 1200 units a year is the long term growth rate of the city - maybe a bit lower. Generously ascribe 20% of that to luxury demand and that's about 250 units a year - MAX. Assuming the three projects now selling (The Clarendon, Provnce Place and the W) sell out about the same time the projects in question are coming onlline and there will be solid demand in the early going. However, as noted there are 2700 units under construction or breaking ground this year just on large downtown projects - for the most part high end luxury. Please don't come out with "there is demand for this property". Please tell me how the annual rate of luxury absorption goes above 250 units - where do these peopel magically come from or how it does not create a tax crisis in the city if we glut the luxury housing market which will drive down the value of luxury housing which directly pushes tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes onto the other residents of the city.

With such a large glut almost certainly coming - why do we need to push the envelope on zoning and massing?

Steve,

You're clearly informed, thanks for the info. One question: How is the demand measured? Are you referring to actual units that are absorbed every year to get to that 1,200 number, or some other type of demographic trends? I only ask because demand is notoriously hard to predict, and I believe conflating demand and actual absorption would be a mistake. Here's why: If you build zero new housing and supply stands exactly unchanged for 10 years, and population therefore doesn't change (since there is nowhere to live) it would be easy to say "no one wanted to live here, because the population didn't grow." That, however, would not be a measure of demand, it would be a measure of supply. If I have it wrong, then I would love to see the census numbers, they sound interesting. I did a quick search for them and didn't find anything, and I was not aware that the census measured demand, per se. Since the city grew by about 28,000 people over the last decade, I can see how you would use that to get to a presumed demand number, but I think it would be a mistake.

I guess then I'd wonder what we attribute prices to. Everything that I have read attributes it to extremely limited supply, and if that's not true it would throw a lot of research out the window. I am not saying that would be impossible, but it would be surprising.

Alex - these are the units we build each year - 12,000 over the past 10 years which appears to provide a "balance" of reasonable vacancies etc. Current economic clmate has led to a modest surplus of housing units for sale and a slight shortage of rental units - but by no means crisis levels. If it were simply supply and demand, the landlords should have been making money hand over fist - but of the landlords I know, they make a reasonable, but not excessive profit. That has changed slightly perhaps in the past year, but not dramatically.

Then why are rents high? Cost. If you develop property, you massively overpay relative to what the current zoning will support, go to the city hat in hand and say I have to build X% bigger than zoning to make money and if you are willing to build, the city pulls out the stops to make it happen - the politicians get money from the developers (legally - no accusations) and they get votes and money from the unions. That's how the system works. Other costs drive this up as well, high contractor costs, difficulty/expense of building in congested areas, antiquated infrastructure, a tax system that disproportionately pushes taxes onto landlords and a host of other things.

There is demand and some extra supply of middle income housing may alleviate that somewhat. However, the primary driver of high rents in the city is high underlying costs, primarily wildly speculative acquisition costs driven by a lack of rigid zoning policies.

Soft costs in Boston (as well as places like San Francisco and much of New York) are also extremely high. One of the primary drivers of these soft costs is the hurdles that one must jump through to get projects approved, including the carrying costs of a lengthy approval process and the inevitable court battles. Not to mention legal fees, architecture fees on infinite iterations of the plans, etc. Hard construction costs are also much higher here, but if you compare total development costs in Boston to most other places, the differences you outline do not nearly account for the difference. These soft costs are inflated by the development climate. They also play a role in preventing landlords from making money hand over fist. I am not advocating this, but would like to ask: if we became Houston and let people build whatever they want wherever they want, do you think housing costs would go down?

As for your methodology for measuring "demand," well, you know how I (and any statistician or economist worth a damn) feel about the notion that "that's what we build, so it must be what the demand is." There are so many mitigating factors to that that it's not worth trying to list them.

By the way, I agree with you 100% on the problems with rigid zoning. I wish that we would zone parts of the city for higher density (there is virtually nowhere where zoning allows for heights more than 155 feet) so that we all had a little faith in what the rules were. It would do a great deal to protect historic neighborhoods while allowing for responsible growth.

Very interesting discussion and a lot of good points here. I'm not an urban planner, I work in technology and live a few blocks away from Copley. I'm a city lover and wouldn't live anywhere else. I was in favor of this development when I heard about it and after reading all the posts here, I am still in favor. Alex makes a lot of good points that seem right on target to me, thanks for sharing your knowledge!

Steve, in the interest of full disclosure, shouldn't you mention that your real (and previously-stated) concern is that all the additional building will satiate demand, therefore reducing the value of some people's condos, meaning they can't profit as much as they would otherwise if and when they sell?

Is that true, Steve? Bogus "statistics" AND less than full disclosure?

Steve,

Please see my comments above in which I point out that equating absorption with demand is totally bogus.

There are companies all over this country that exist to try to measure demand for real estate through a host of complex factors, and they frequently get it wrong. If measuring demand is as simple as measuring the average rate of absorption for the previous decade (as you do above) then they are all wasting their time, and the real estate and urban planning communities could save millions by just calling you!

Let's measure the demand for alcohol in restaurants in Arlington, which a decade ago was a dry town. Since no alcohol was being purchased there, by your logic, there was zero demand. But then they allowed the sale of alcohol, and people, shockingly, bought it. Was demand increased from zero to something overnight? Or was there always demand, but there was not adequate supply to meet it?

Your "demand" calculation is bogus. This is almost not worth debating.

As for your property tax logic, let's take a closer look: If, as you say, the addition of 318 units actually reduced the value of EVERY condominium unit in the city by $200,000, then yes, we'd have a big problem. Do you have any reason to believe that would happen? Could you provide an analysis of what the addition of new units would actually do to average values, and how that would be offset by new tax-producing units?

What about the fact that this building in particular will probably cost the City next to nothing? It's likely to add hardly any students to the public school system, will not require any new streets to be plowed, and is unlikely to become a crime hotspot requiring frequent police attention. Is it possible that, by tweaking your assumptions, this could be a net gain for the City? Maybe if your quantitative analysis methodology were a little more trustworthy you'd have a leg to stand on, but you're clearly willing to create "facts" where they don't exist in order to support your opinions.

It's not just this project. If we were building 318 units - we DO need that. However, we broke ground on 1000 downtown luxury tower units last year and we are scheduled to break ground on 1900 this year (including this project). I'm generally not opposed to this project and I think some height here is a reasonable development - however - we would then be talking about a project somewhere between the height of Tent City and the Westin. If we had an a shortage of housing and a need to start "cramming" - there might be a justification for the size of this structure. However, the only justification I have ever heard is that is how big it has to be to make money and if we are using the developer's profitability as the sole determinant of planning in the city we have a serious problem (and we do have that serious problem unless your name is Chiofaro).

As for average values - who knows? However, if you build 3000 units in two years when the demand is closer to 500 - check out places like Las Vegas. They didn't even have a glut that big and prices have come down almost 50%, so I'd guess somewhere between 10% and 40% depending on how deep the developers' pockets are. This will settle eventually, but there will be a lot of pain and the way the tax system works, it's not all the developers' or even the neighborhood's pain - it gets spread through the whole city and the three-peat of history going back to the 80's is firmly on my side of the argument.