11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

chrisbrat said:
I'm not following. If Wu "owns them," then how/why does she consider them the enemy?
Click to expand...
I don't think she necessarily understands how she's changed the dynamic. I appreciate the idea of making the planning department more accountable to city council. But it's always been the Mayors fiefdom--so when the mayor wants something (say no development in reedville or all the signs on top of buildings) it happens and everyone assumes that the BPDA had the idea.

Now that the department is part of the usual city structure, it's decisions and actions reflect directly on the Mayor. So when she wants to do something (white stadium) she can't hide behind the big bad BRA.

Maybe she does know that but from people I know working for the city it doesn't seem like it.
 
That said, I don't think the public perception will change. There was an article in the Globe today full of community activists comments where they clearly think that the BRA is some kind of rogue agency that does whatever it wants. It's hard to understand how a city government would allow that.
 
DwnTwnr said:
I don't think she necessarily understands how she's changed the dynamic. I appreciate the idea of making the planning department more accountable to city council. But it's always been the Mayors fiefdom--so when the mayor wants something (say no development in reedville or all the signs on top of buildings) it happens and everyone assumes that the BPDA had the idea.

Now that the department is part of the usual city structure, it's decisions and actions reflect directly on the Mayor. So when she wants to do something (white stadium) she can't hide behind the big bad BRA.

Maybe she does know that but from people I know working for the city it doesn't seem like it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think Wu understands everything you're describing. In her report on the BPDA from when she was councilwoman, the second sentence reads "The BPDA gives concentrated control over development to the Mayor of Boston with little to no accountability." She explains that in detail over the next 70 pages, describing the BPDA as a rubber stamp for whatever the mayor wants, which also obscures that decision making from the residents of Boston. She understands all that. That's exactly what she is trying to change.
 
DwnTwnr said:
Maybe she does know that but from people I know working for the city it doesn't seem like it
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure she does in fact know this, because it's the same arrangement she called for as a member of the city council. This is the mayor as an advocate for good governance, not evidence that she is confused about how to user her power.
 
Looks like PLAN: Downtown is bearing fruits:

11-21 Bromfield Street | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org

The Proposed Project will involve the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of the new residential building. This approximately 800,000 square foot building will contain 760+ apartments, 20% of which will be affordable, as well as approximately 25,000 square feet of ground floor retail space at the corner of Washington and Bromfield Streets, and parking for approximately 100 vehicles.
Click to expand...
 
BeansTheCat said:
Looks like PLAN: Downtown is bearing fruits:

11-21 Bromfield Street | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org
Click to expand...

20% "affordable" apartments sound very promising. If 760+ apartments is exact, that's at least 260ish more than most recent residential towers. We might get our 683' skyscraper back!
 
Last edited:
Moderators: please consider whether this thread should be relabeled to "11-45 Bromfield Street." Yes, they are discrete projects separated by Province Street--but in fact, the ONLY thing that separates them is Province Street, according to the LOI:

https://bpda.app.box.com/s/0v3g7ze8d3xapv498uiplqlyvaxmm4l4

So, needless to say, these separate towers will be "in direct dialogue" (if we're lucky enough to seem them both get built....)


EDIT: I see someone has already set-up a separate 45 Bromfield thread... works for me! though I feel a strong argument can be made that they can be consolidated into the same discussion, given their extreme proximity...
 
Last edited:
Seeing two new developments hit Bromfield in a day, shortly after PLAN: Downtown was finalized should be the clearest evidence that restrictive zoning limits development. If neither of these requires variances they will absolutely be built with (ideally) almost no friction. Really exciting!
 
760+ apartments. That’s huge. Like really huge. 800,000 SQF on the footprint is going to make it pretty damn tall. Granted the units will be smaller than Millennium Tower, but that only has 442.
 
Never forget that many of the current downtown residents fought with everything they had to prevent this zoning change from being implemented. They wrote letters, roped the city into community meetings, bombed message boards and public comments with form letters and hosted J Kraft at private fundraisers (who remembers the NYC skyline invitation). All within bounds of a messy democratic process but this is exactly what they didn’t want. Their high rise views will change and their future property prices may be impacted but this is a great policy that is already poised to bring almost 1,000 new units online.
 
I wasn't the only person who scrolled through the BPDA (sic) to the bottom and cried when they saw that the first LOI was from .. 2008.

I don't live in Boston but I've had the feeling during the past 2-3 years that residents in neighborhoods aren't as interested as they used to be about development and, really, the future of the city. Are neighborhood associations as active as prior to COVID? I feel that the "activists" have all sort of aged out and what's replaced them are residents who don't care as much.

I dunno.
 
tobyjug said:
Scylla and Charybdis. Woof.
Click to expand...
I've seen 'em at LaGrassa's! They were bombarding the hapless counterman with all kinds of obnoxious questions; does the pastrami taste like "the wine-dark sea"; is the chicken parm of a "suitably Homeric disposition," is there anything on the menu "of an ancient Greek flavor." It was kind of embarrassing, tbh.
 
DBM said:
I've seen 'em at LaGrassa's! They were bombarding the hapless counterman with all kinds of obnoxious questions; does the pastrami taste like "the wine-dark sea"; is the chicken parm of a "suitably Homeric disposition," is there anything on the menu "of an ancient Greek flavor." It was kind of embarrassing, tbh.
Click to expand...
The pastrami sandwich for the fussy epicure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
I've seen several articles on this proposal mention that the site is zoned for up to 500 feet, but I think it's actually 700. There was a lot of confusion about PLAN Downton with the different SKY districts, but as I understand it the final map is below from June 2025:

Screenshot 2026-07-02 090029.png

11-21 Bromfield was specifically carved out to be in the SKY district. The SKY district's height limits are the FAA or the State Shadow Law, whichever is lower. This parcel does not cast shadows on the common, so I believe it reverts to the FAA limit.

Does anyone else have a different reading of this?
 
Yeah that’s my reading too. I recall this end of Washington and especially this parcel were looped into the FAA limit cohort. The PNF will be important because there may be a scenario they file this with no zoning relief requests…
 
Yes, it’s 700. And I don’t see how a building with 760 units on this footprint could top out around 500ft even if all the units were studios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top