To see all the Sunday open houses on a map, click here. Mapping courtesy of Patrick Kaeding.

Above, 7 St Charles Street, South End, Boston, Massachusetts. Laura Spence of Gibson Sotheby’s International Realty is the listing agent.

Related posts:

1. South End Sunday Open Houses for May 23, 2010
2. South End Boston Sunday Open Houses for March 7, 2010
3. South End Boston Sunday Open Houses for April 18, 2010

Much of the South End is built on made-land or on marshy swamps. In order to stabilize it, wooden piles were driven into the ground before homes were built, above. As long as the piles remain under water, they don’t rot. If the water goes down, however, the piles are exposed and start rotting away.

That’s what’s started to happen in a section of the South End; specifically, along the stretch of land nearest the Back Bay / South End MBTA Orange Line, un-coincidentally, where a new station was constructed in the mid-1980′s.

From the South End News:

As drains, sewers and the MBTA’s underground projects began to be constructed beneath the groundwater level, the level of the water began to drop. As a result, wooden piles once completely submerged have been exposed to air, leaving them at risk of severe rotting, thus putting the stability of the houses on top of them at risk.

Several houses on Cazenove Street have already been severely impacted by such rotting.

Of course, the danger is, once the pilings start to rot, the foundation is undermined and the house begins to list or, worst-case scenario, collapse.

Just pouring more water into the ground will not always solve the problem.

Hypothetically, refilling the groundwater levels can solve the problem of the rotting woodpiles, but the solution isn’t foolproof … [O]nce the pilings are re-submerged, the rot should stop, as the environment that was supporting various fungi eating at the wood is no longer there. However, if the rot is too advanced, it is impossible for simple refilling to solve the problem.

New pilings may be necessary.

Mitigation is not easy. Or, cheap.

The process requires at least 10 weeks of construction and costs approximately $250,000 – $300,000.

Exactly who is responsible for the problem is not clear. Meaning, who should pay for the clean-up / fix is not clear.

The MBTA seems partially-responsible but they are taking a pass. The city says it doesn’t help private landowners so even though a reduction in groundwater may be their fault, the rotting of the piles and the foundation problems are the homeowners’ responsibility. Um, thanks.

If you’re considering the purchase of a single-family home or condominium in the South End, you need to be aware of this. Talk with your buyer’s agent about the potential problems. Ask the seller’s agent for as much information as possible and search the public records for any past history of problems. Even though the current owner may not know of any groundwater issues – and may never have heard of the problem, honestly – you don’t want to be taken by surprise.

As of now, it appears the problem is only focused on a small area of the South End. Other areas may have the problem, as well.

If you want to avoid the problem, altogether, there are sections of the South End that are solid land, such as the length of Washington Street.

In all cases the truism is, “Buyer Beware.”

Photo of exposed pilings from the Boston Groundwater Trust website.

Related posts:

1. Groundwater legislation to be discussed on Beacon Hill
2. Northeastern professor suggests new “stimulus” plan
3. South Padre Island 31-story building is imploded

He has an article in this spring’s City Journal magazine in which he warns of the perils of historic landmarking major sections of cities, New York City in particular. His opinions are backed up with facts and a fair analysis of some data.

What he discusses is as important to us in Boston as it is in NYC.

It is wise and good to protect the most cherished parts of a city’s architectural history. But New York’s vast historic districts, which include thousands of utterly undistinguished structures, don’t accomplish that goal.

Worse, they impede new construction, keeping real estate in New York City enormously expensive (despite a housing crash), especially in its most desirable, historically protected areas. It’s time to ask whether New York’s big historic districts make sense.

He measures the effects of having historic district, again using New York City as an example.

During the 1980s, the mostly historic tracts added an average of 48 housing units apiece—noticeably fewer than the 280 units added in the partly historic tracts and the 258 units added in the nonhistoric tracts.

In the 1990s, the mostly historic tracts lost an average of 94 housing units (thanks to unit consolidation or conversion to other uses), while the partly historic tracts lost an average of 46 units and the nonhistoric tracts added an average of 89 units.

From 1980 through 1991, the average price of a midsize condominium (between 800 and 1,200 square feet) sold in a historic district was $494,043 in today’s dollars. From 1991 through 2002, that price was $582,671—an 18 percent increase. The average price of a midsize condo outside a historic district, meanwhile, barely rose in real dollars, from $581,865 in the first decade to just $583,352 in the second.

That’s a stunning statistic. Again, the average sales price in an historic district rose 18 percent, whereas, in real dollars, average sales price stayed stagnant.

The same is probably true in Boston (although I’m not an economist and I don’t have access to the same data as Professor Glaeser). The downtown neighborhoods are all landmarked – South End, Back Bay, and Beacon Hill. While it may seem to some that we had non-stop construction during the past decade, in fact, we had little increase in housing stock.

The results were to be expected. We had a jump in demand with a limited supply. Prices rose. (Having said that, some of the price increase was no doubt due to many of these existing properties being upgraded and rehabbed extensively.)

While I no doubt personally benefited from price increases (go, me!), whether or not it is beneficial to others is questionable.

Related posts:

1. What caused the housing boom / bust? Ed Glaeser chimes in
2. Big buildings mean green cities
3. Castle Square to receive $43 million in renovation and preservation funds

Two of the lease-holders on the land slated for the project, Boston-based WinnCompanies and the California state pension fund known as CalPERS, could not come up with a viable business plan during the month that they were given since Feb. 9 to present a plan to state officials that indicated they had a scheduled timeline to restart construction on the project.

The writing was on the wall as long ago as summer, 2008, when I penned this opinion piece for the South End News. Everything I wrote then is true, today.

An opportunity to stitch back together a deep tear in the urban fabric was lost with the failed Columbus Center project, the proposed $800 million, mixed-use complex to be built on decks constructed over the Massachusetts Turnpike. After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else. It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.

How could this possibly happen? How could a project that was so far along in the process unravel at the last minute, after construction had already started?

There is plenty of blame to spread around, beginning with the company that first proposed the development.

It looks as though Arthur Winn and his WinnDevelopment never secured the money needed to complete the project. According to published reports, the developer missed two deadlines earlier this year by which it was supposed to have proved to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority that it had raised $500 million (it did prove it had at least half that). But, trouble was brewing long before then.

Back in 1996, the developer proposed a subsidy-free project, but soon after it received its first approvals, it began reaching out for taxpayer money. Meanwhile, its financing began to fall apart. Major investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew more than $500 million in commitments as early as 2006. The next year, the real estate subsidiary run by investment partner CalPERS (now “owner of record” on the project and “leasee” of the Turnpike air rights lease) threatened to pull out unless the state guaranteed public assistance. In early 2007, the developers came to the state asking for help; but by April 2008, they hit a brick wall, failing to make it to round two in their quest for a $10 million MORE (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) grant. Not long after, MassHousing, the state’s affordable housing agency, withdrew its promise of another $20 million. When asked, the city of Boston, which had already committed $14 million in incentives and tax credits, said, “No more.”

Meanwhile, at the same time it was knocking on doors in search of funds, the developer faced a rapidly increasing budget, due to rising labor and material costs. The project had an estimated cost of $300 million when it was proposed in 1996, but that has ballooned to the now estimated $800 million. It sure didn’t help things when the credit crisis hit the commercial markets and residential real estate sales imploded.

If Mr. Winn had been able to pull things together, it would have been possible to ignore the constant drone of complaints from a small but vocal group of residents, neighbors and politicians, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But, he didn’t, it wasn’t, and we are.

The Columbus Center was more than just “luxury condos.” It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks – the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much – their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

Blame also lies at the feet of our local elected officials. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, South End State Representative Byron Rushing and Back Bay State Representative Marty Walz each spoke out against public financing for Columbus Center, in effect dooming its chances to move forward.

Ironically, at the same time they were expressing astonishment at the very idea of public funds going to a private company, they were supporting legislation that handed out millions (actually, billions) of dollars in subsidies to other projects across the Commonwealth.

For example, Reps. DiMasi and Walz approved $60 million in state spending and incentives to help “persuade” drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to move to Massachusetts. They’ve both heaped praise on the Massachusetts film-credit incentive program, which the Department of Revenue estimates has cost the state $120 million over the past three years. And just this spring, all three voted in favor of the $1 billion life sciences bill, which authorizes $500 million in borrowed capital spending, an additional $250 million in grants, and another $250 million in tax incentives.

Yet, when it came to helping out someone in their own backyard, our representatives defied logic and suddenly clammed up and clamped down. It’s all well and good to argue against public subsidies on principle, but don’t pull it out as an excuse only when it’s politically expedient or personally beneficial.

What have residents lost, as a result of the project’s failure? Property tax revenues (eventually; the city had promised forgiveness of much of it during the first years), jobs, homes, parks, parking spaces and the conveniences of local shops, for starters. In addition, WinnDevelopment would have been required to include affordable-housing units as part of any new construction or make a significant financial payment into the city’s low-cost housing fund. These community benefits are all gone.

But, this is all water under the bridge, or decks, as it were. I, for one, have given up on the project. One small request, though. Mr. Winn, don’t feel any rush to clean up your construction site; please leave it as is – an enduring testament to the lost chances and broken dreams that define the development process in Boston in the 21st century.

Related posts:

1. Columbus Center project goes down for the count
2. John Rosenthal gives back: shuts off complaints by Boston resident
3. Liberty Mutual Back Bay expansion will bring new building, less tax revenue

First was Joe DeAngelo over at Gibson Sotheby’s International Realty who has been accused of deliberately misleading one of his clients.

From the Boston Globe:

Alyssa Burrage says she was smoked out of her new $405,000 condominium.

Burrage, a 32-year-old advertising company employee with a history of asthma, had smelled cigarettes when she first visited the bright, parlor-level condo in Boston’s South End in 2006 with her real estate broker. But the broker, she alleges, assured her that the owner must be a smoker and the stench would disappear.

Yet, after she moved in, the smell continued; she subsequently discovered that the smoke came from one of the people who lived in the condo below.

Fast forward four years, and Burrage has sued the agent and/or the brokerage firm that employs him, the two men who live below her, and the building’s condo association.

… DeAngelo and his employer, Gibson Sotheby’s International Realty, deny that Burrage questioned him about smoke in the condo.

“DeAngelo never made any misrepresentations, or any representations at all, concerning the source of the alleged smoke smell,’’ the broker’s lawyer, Jay S. Gregory of Boston, said in the filing.

There are several things that aren’t clear from the article. First, has Burrage sued Joe or Gibson? Presumably, Gibson, the real estate agency, since ultimately the actions of its agents are its responsibility.

Second, it’s not clear exactly who showed the woman the property and under what guise. Joe was the woman’s buyer’s agent, from what we can gather from the article (and from what shows in MLSPIN) so he was responsible to her, yet the article makes it sound as if he was the one who showed the property on behalf of the seller. Another agent at Gibson is listed as the seller’s agent – did that agent show the unit to the buyer or did Joe let himself in, each time?

It’s a slippery slope when both buyer’s agent and seller’s agent work for the same company. It’s legal for this to happen, in Massachusetts. But, it does raise many ethical questions. The agents know each other, they converse with each other, they may inadvertently share information with each other. Meanwhile, the company, ultimately, is in the business of earning revenue; is it possible to show loyalty to both sides?

I don’t see this as a “second-hand smoker” case but a simple one of disclosure of material facts by the listing agent. Also, as her agent, Joe was required to work on her behalf. Whether he did is the central argument in this lawsuit.

However, it does raise the question: is it a material fact to disclose that someone smokes in a building? I would say, maybe. The point of this is that it was material to the buyer – she states she asked several times about the smoking situation. It doesn’t matter (necessarily) if it would be important to you or me; it was important to her.

My sister smokes and she lives in a seven-unit condo building. The guy upstairs listed his condo for sale. He came down before the first open house to ask her to stop smoking for several hours. She agreed. However, the next Sunday, he asked again, and she said, no.

Was it ethical for the owner to ask? (I believe he was doing a for-sale-by-owner, so there was no agent involved – there’s a lesson there, too, people.) Should my sister have complied? What would the buyer think? (I believe it didn’t end up selling.)

The rule in real estate is to “over” disclose. The fear of litigation is the threat – obviously, a real one.

Related posts:

1. Owner’s claim goes up in smoke; Boston real estate agent vindicated
2. Tough times to be a Boston real estate agent (p. 2)
3. Canada’s housing market didn’t collapse and your agent will work for food

Well, there were 95 sales of condominium homes in this neighborhood in the 90 days between November 1, 2009 and January 31, 2010, according to the Multiple Listing Service Property Information Network, Inc. (MLSPIN), one of two downtown Boston multiple listing services.

Here is a Google map showing the sales. Each pin is a sale – clicking on a pin will show you the price, square footage, number of bedrooms, and number of full- and half-baths, along with a complete address of each condo.

South End Boston condo sales

How does your home compare?

Each property is unique. You can get a general idea of how much your property may be worth by comparing the size and location of yours vs. your neighbor’s, but only a full comparative market analysis (CMA) will give you all the information you need.

Contact me for more information on CMAs, the South End real estate market, or for answers to any of your real estate questions.

The cool Google map is used courtesy of Patrick Kaeding – a fellow Northeastern University alum. Check out his work.

Related posts:

1. Boston condo sales data, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
2. Greater Boston home sales in 2010 see uneven data results
3. Boston condo and real estate sales report, December 5, 2009

A group of Emerson College students have been out in the downtown neighborhoods doing on-the-street interviews with local residents and business owners and reporting on issues. Many of their reports are on video but they’ve also created a website called “Bostonia by Emerson“.

Neighbors covered include the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, Jamaica Plain, and the North End. (Also, the city of Cambridge.)

Here is one young woman’s final report on Beacon Hill – its history and the issues facing the historic neighborhood, today:

Related posts:

1. Tour of new Paramount Center at Emerson College on Nov 12th
2. Wait, this is Boston? Emerson College Paramount Center gets freaky
3. Ed Glaeser nails it, once again: historic preservation can hurt cities

From the NorthEndWaterfront.com website:

On Tuesday, December 1, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture will hold a hearing on a landmark bill to protect groundwater. You can support this important legislation by:

1. Attending and, ideally, offering testimony in support of the need for groundwater protection;

3. Forwarding this information publicizing the hearing and encouraging others to attend the hearing.

As everyone in the South End knows, our neighborhood is built on created land, landfill trucked in and spread over marshland. To help support all the buildings, piles were drilled into the ground, over which slabs were laid, on top of which our homes were built. The piles are made of wood. If they stay covered by groundwater, they can last forever. If they’re exposed to the elements (air), they can degrade. Starting sometime this century, the area groundwater level dropped and the wood pilings were exposed. They are degrading.

Why, how, and, most importantly, who is responsible for it, is the big question. This legislation will help.

Details on what will be discussed as well as a copy of the proposed legislation can be found on the NEW website.

Photo used under

Creative Commons license

Related posts:

1. A nightmare of epic proportions hits (some) South End homeowners
2. Land-grab by two state representatives would irrevocably alter and damage Boston
3. MA Governor’s legislation will preserve affordable housing for many

40-42 Bradford Street, South End, Boston – a single-family home under agreement.

Related posts:

1. New construction single-family home in South End on Bradford Street
2. Premier Boston single-family home comes on market in the South End
3. Single-family home available in North End for under $600,000

UPDATE: On Nov 17, the BRA approved the plans for 691 Mass Ave according to the Boston Business Journal.

First up is public hearing on plans for the Charlesview housing development consisting of 240 affordable rental housing units and 23,000 square feet of commercial & community space located at 355 and 400 Western Avenue and 1256 and 1266 Soldiers Field Road in Brighton.

Next is a public hearing on plans for the construction of the Urbanica 691 Project consisting of forty residential condominium units, of which four will be affordable, located at 691 Massachusetts Avenue.

Photo courtesy http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwirth/ under CC BY-NC 2.0

Related posts:

1. Plans for Mass Ave Boston residential building continue to come together
2. MA Governor’s legislation will preserve affordable housing for many
3. California ruling on affordable housing set asides may mean trouble in Boston