The McCormack building could be used to move state and local offices, allowing complete redevevelopment of a lot of the monstrosities around gov't center....
You're missing the point: design review made it *worse* than what the developers wanted to build, not that the final design is awful. If you go to the thread here on ArchBoston, you will see a wide variety of more interesting designs that were initially proposed, then watered down in design...
Design review destroys good design and reduces it to the lowest common denominator. There's a great case study on this very forum for the newish building at Dartmouth and Newbury.
The reason you need the big assemblages is the thicket of zoning rules involving setbacks, heights (relaxed), lot coverage, etc. Cut these back, you can do smaller projects easier!
Isn't the opposite true? Instead of letting NIMBYs and all sorts of nonsense block *towers downtown* we should make them by right and possibly require facade preservation with simple clear rules? There's a reason we just saw two proposals immediately after they became by right --- in fact, we'd...
AI generated nonsense, this view doesn't exist. Note the northern ave bridge in frame and the mislocated Customs House Tower viz International Place....
The only smart way to do 60-100% affordable imho is to put in lots of 100-120% AMI which is the sort of thing that should pencil in normal conditions for non-trendy n'hoods (like this area).
the city refused to consider doing this in the name of starting faster. meanwhile, it was already supposed to be finished and it has yet to start and the city has a budget crunch.