The litigation, CLF v. Commonwealth, turns on the definition of "relatively modest". Is a 600' building "relatively modest"? The litigation is also challenging the size of the proposed building on the Hook Lobster parcel.
.... To approve any substitute provision to the height standard at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e), I must first determine that the Plan specifies alternative height limits and other requirements that ensure that, in general, new or expanded buildings for nonwater-dependent use will be relatively modest in size, in order that wind, shadow, and other conditions of the ground-level environment will be conducive to water-dependent activity and public access associated therewith, as appropriate for the applicable location on Boston Harbor. The approval regulations focus on how a building’s mass will be experienced at the public open spaces on the project site, especially along the waterfront and key pathways leading thereto. Within this context, I must apply the “comparable or greater effectiveness” test to determine whether the proposed substitution and offsetting measures will assure that the above objective is met.
See p. 10 of Commonwealth’s approval of South Boston waterfront zoning [my emphasis]
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/pl/south-boston-mhp-decision-10-22-09.pdf
The link below is to the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Boston Waterfront Development Corp. [BWDC] v. Commonwealth, a 1979 decision that set out a public use of waterfront land.
This decision upset the applecart about what could be built along the waterfront.
...We hold, as did the Appeals Court, that BWDC's ownership of the land in question is subject to the condition that it be used for a public purpose related to the "promotion of trade and commerce by enabling and encouraging the owners of flats to build wharves, warehouses, and other structures thereon for the use and convenience of those having occasion to resort to the ports and harbors ...." Bradford v. McQuesten, 182 Mass. at 82. Whether BWDC's current use of the land is consistent with that public purpose, and if not, what the proper remedy might be, we leave for such further proceedings as the parties may deem appropriate or necessary.
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/378/378mass629.html
Note: The decision in BWDC was after the construction of Harbor Towers, which opened in 1971. IMO, it is likely that HT could not have been built if this decision had antedated their construction.
As for Chiofaro and his garage project, the parcel is <57,500 sq ft. The Commonwealth has decreed that the building cannot be over 600’ tall, as a taller height would cast a new shadow on Long Wharf on October 31.
The city of Boston concluded that the 600’ feet height could be achieved on a small part of the parcel, at the southwest corner, adjacent to the Greenway. (Apparently, the northbound CA/T tunnel is very close to this small part of the property; this could impinge on construction there.) Fifty percent of the parcel must remain as open space, and this would contain the garage entrance. The city of Boston said the building must not exceed 900,000 gross sq ft.
In Sept 2018, in an article in
Boston magazine, Chiofaro indicated the building would be built above a replacement garage, and contain a hotel, commercial office space, and condos. The building would be built as layers, with the condo starting at elevation 400’.
Looked at very simplistically, if Chiofaro has 30 floors each at 28,000 gsf (which is about 50 percent of the parcel) up to 400 feet, that leaves him with 60,000 gsf for the condos, or about 4,000 gsf a condo floor (15 condo floors). And the gsf is reduced by elevator(s), stairwells, and mechanical and utility chases. (The 600’ limit probably includes the height of the penthouse for the elevator overrun and other mechanicals, so the actual number of condo floors may very well be less).
A more sophisticated look would suggest a building that resembles a sculpted spire, rising in incrementally shrinking layers from a broad 28,000 sq ft podium, with lots of terracing, and three separate uses requiring three separate lobbies. (And maybe a lobby for the garage, too.) Very little street level presence. IMO, three distinct uses with varying floor plates means a costly, perhaps unaffordable, building to construct on top of a new, large, expensive, underground garage.