Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF
Just to make it clear, my understanding is that the tower itself will be privately developed (by the developer working with each architect as Boston Properties was working with Calatrava) on land purchased (or leased) from the city and the purchase price/lease money will be applied to the public portion of the project, the terminal itself. Therefore, it's not so much a question of what the city can afford--because the terminal already has a well-defined budget--but what the tower developer thinks will "pencil out" (something that depends on the mix of office/housing/hotel and many other factors).
The point of allowing a very tall tower is that the ability to build very tall makes it possible to charge more for the land the tower will sit on--because the land cost will be a smaller portion of the total project cost. That, in turn, brings in more money for the terminal. It's that fact which caused anti-development types like Chris Daly to support height in this project.
|
Yes, sorry I missed that. It is actually more of an economic concern of Boston Properties, rather than the city. The rest of what you say, I now agree as well. Thanks for pointing that out. I am often surrounded by a very young, noisy, but chearful distraction that is almost unavoidable when I read and write at home. Work is not a good place either, but I much rather do this at home. Okay, back on topic...