The Alcott (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

John, I was thinking the exact same thing!
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Who is "tosh33" in the Boston Globe comments? He/She has been writing up a storm, all of it "pro" development.

Best guess is odurandina, based on similarly long posts on skyscrapercity. (or skyscraperpage, or both, who remembers) But that's just a guess!
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Passed
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

^ Just saw the tweet. Huzzah!
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

What were the changes?
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

I hope thats either a typo or a joke. But really anybody know what changed on this I would imagine they knocked it down a bit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Cut it down from 44 to 4 stories, with 16 units, 112 parking spaces, and an additional acre of open space.


I needed a laugh..thanks!!
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

55 fewer parking spaces, 6000 sq. ft less building. No loss of units. $1 million more to North Station transportation action plan, more money to affordable housing fund.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Just read through the BRA documents for this project. The opposition letters are pathetic. The West End is a disgrace.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

55 fewer parking spaces, 6000 sq. ft less building. No loss of units. $1 million more to North Station transportation action plan, more money to affordable housing fund.

So essentialy no change to the tower itself?
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

It was approved quickly and unanimously. There was a handful of angry people shouting at the board members on the way out calling them liars and prostitutes.


Next up is to go before the zoning board.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

So what you're saying is that archboston contributors were overreacting a few weeks ago? I'm shocked! ;)
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End


Great news! This is going to be a nice little cluster where there previously was absolutely nothing.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

The West End hyperbole crew might have actually improved the project scope. I couldn't help peruse the comment letters after meddlepal jogged my interest, but the "institutional" complaints (i.e. Amy Lowell Residents' Assoc.) certainly demanded less parking and they did note that Equity's height demands were based in part on recouping underground parking garage construction costs. Now, I'm reasonably sure that ALRA et al were using that tactic to try and scale the height down and thankfully they seemed to have mostly failed in that mission...but, hey, credit where credit is due, they did manage to convince Equity to ditch parking spots on site within a Shaq freethrow of the second-most significant multimodal node in New England. I'll fucking take that outcome any day of the week.

I have no idea what exactly the various resident associations' goals were other than their opposition based on a thorough review of available statistics and resultant trends over time...........okay fine, based on their opposition to Equity's dog park public benefit idea, their SHOCK and DISAPPOINTMENT that the BRA even contemplated such a project that would terrify any reasonable abutters, and their DEMAND for better treatments weren't met (emphasis not mine...). It's always a bit hard to tell if they're altruistic in their push for more on-site affordable housing or they're just Carlone-ing and using that as a way to kill the project's economy and thus the developer's interest. I'll err on the side of generosity. Seriously though, the letters are fun read.

But, let's call a spade a spade - all this opposition might just have worked out in an odd way. And that's no small feat - the "new" West End was after-all planned and development by a mall architect who sought to limit the intrusion of automobiles into the West End's streets and isolate the "urban villages" (makes about as much sense as a "small A380") from the surrounding area. The area as designed and, clearly, as understood by the resident orgs (they reference the 1957 West End Urban Renewal Plan zoning regs a bunch in their complaints as in "this project does not conform to the 1957....therefore it should not be built), prevents this sort of development. So, let's hope the zoning board doesn't strip it down (too much), but this was always going to be a struggle.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

So, let's hope the zoning board doesn't strip it down (too much), but this was always going to be a struggle.

Does the zoning board (commission?) ever reject stuff that was approved by the BRA board? Looking at the member list it's basically stacked with mayoral picks or vested interests (building trade union for example).
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

This thing is breaking the zoning, however archaic, in a big way. I think there's gonna be some hangups with the zoning board (and the opposition is going to fill the ZBA meetings with the usual shouting and picketing, etc). I hope not, but wouldn't be surprised if it stumbles through approval process rather than sailing.
 
Re: Longfellow Place (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

Does the zoning board (commission?) ever reject stuff that was approved by the BRA board? Looking at the member list it's basically stacked with mayoral picks or vested interests (building trade union for example).

Not unless there's some serious internecine warfare going on the BRA, which isn't the case (or at least, doesn't appear to be) with the current iteration of the BRA. My thinking was more that delay allows for political action, and changing political winds are more threatening to a development than anything else - I'm cautiously optimistic about the political calculus behind this one: MGH is the big institutional player and they've been wary about getting involved in one way or the other; Zakim and Livingstone put out boilerplate opposition letters, but that those have seemingly been overruled by the BRA would indicate that both probably have better things to do with their time; nobody is going to rush to protect the ugly symbol of urban destruction and cold-hearted displacement of former residents, and the residents' associations have - in my biased opinion - made a pretty miserable case for themselves.

They just say "oh, there's this problem", "oh, there's that problem", but nowhere in the letters that I've read is there any real accounting on their parts of what exactly these problem are, if they're measurable, how it's relatable to contexts in other parts of the city (Martha is gridlock during rush...okay, so are most goddamn streets), and no real accounting for what the Nashua tower or the Garden towers are inevitably going to do to traffic flow on Martha with or without the Garage job.
 

Back
Top