11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

[odurandina]

This guy is sharp. Spectacular presentation all through.

They're looking for clarification on the direction of vehicle entry/exit.

"closed, mechanically ventilated parking."

"not suggesting we're there yet" on early render of podium cladding.

omfg did he just say "elevators for the parking??"

"5 and a half times the prehistoric zoning height of 150' "

Mr. Davis: "there is some value to the public as a singularly, beautiful design."

Ms. Eastley: "We've been asking for tall and slender AND THIS IS IT!...

"It's the podium that's going to make this work...."

She's all for it. just fix the podium.

 

[tmac9wr]

"Five and a half times the historic zoning height of 150'"...sooooo does that mean this building is going to reach 825'??

 

[odurandina]

just crappy math....i think this has BRA backing. just the feeling i get. BCDC seems to like it. i spoke with the presenting architect... he's being evasive about the rooftop height. cuz, it's well over 700??

me; "the top is well over 700'."

Him; "Umm, The height 683'. That's the BRA height....

me; "that's the deck height with three levels above so, it's going well over."

"uhh somewhat over. We're right at the FAA limit." his words.

 

[datadyne007]

I was also at the meeting and there are legitimate concerns about the height from a legal standpoint. This site falls in the Midtown Cultural District and is zoned for 155' max (without the mech penthouse). The site is actually too small to apply an Article 80 PDA overlay district because it is smaller than 1 acre, which is the PDA minimum size. If the BRA doesn't comprehensively amend the zoning, the BRA is at risk of establishing a site-by-site zoning precedent which will make the neighbors even angrier with the city. This was just the BCDC meeting to discuss design and none of this zoning talk is their jurisdiction. The BRA has to go about this in a smart way. I do not get the feeling that this is secretly greenlighted. Once the PNF is filed, it will go before the BRA Board and the height will come up. They're either going to have to break their own law by zoning this site individually without a PDA or they will have to revise the Midtown District (which they should, as it dates to the 60s).

 

[ngb_anim8]

me; "the top is well over 700'."

Him; "Umm, The height 683'. That's the BRA height....

me; "that's the deck height with three levels above so, it's going well over."

"uhh somewhat over. We're right at the FAA limit." his words.

To me I hear"It's 735'."

 

[tobyjug]

I was also at the meeting and there are legitimate concerns about the height from a legal standpoint. This site falls in the Midtown Cultural District and is zoned for 155' max (without the mech penthouse). The site is actually too small to apply an Article 80 PDA overlay district because it is smaller than 1 acre, which is the PDA minimum size. If the BRA doesn't comprehensively amend the zoning, the BRA is at risk of establishing a site-by-site zoning precedent which will make the neighbors even angrier with the city. This was just the BCDC meeting to discuss design and none of this zoning talk is their jurisdiction. The BRA has to go about this in a smart way. I do not get the feeling that this is secretly greenlighted. Once the PNF is filed, it will go before the BRA Board and the height will come up. They're either going to have to break their own law by zoning this site individually without a PDA or they will have to revise the Midtown District (which they should, as it dates to the 60s).

Not a Socratic question...how did 45 Province Street exceed 155'? Different zone? Above the lot size trigger? Thx.

 

[datadyne007]

Not a Socratic question...how did 45 Province Street exceed 155'? Different zone? Above the lot size trigger? Thx.

45 Province is smaller than the One Bromfield site, so it was not approved by applying a PDA. I believe they just approved it by ignoring the zoning. I will check the documents in the morning if I can.

The real "issue" they were concerned with is how much you exceed the zoning height. I think the BRA + BCDC were impartial to exceeding the zoning by like 100' with 45 Province, but this thing is blowing the zoning to pieces by nearly 500'. The original One Bromfield at 28 stories (probably around 300') would have exceeded the zoning by 150'.

Millennium Tower had a PDA applied and the City was heavily in favor due to the fact that the project included a rehab of the Filene's Burnham Building.

BRA zoning map: http://maps.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/zoningviewer/

 

[dirtywater]

45 Province is smaller than the One Bromfield site, so it was not approved by applying a PDA.

The real "issue" they were concerned with is how much you exceed the zoning height. I think the BRA + BCDC were impartial to exceeding the zoning by like 100', but this thing is blowing the zoning to pieces by nearly 500'. The original One Bromfield at 28 stories (probably around 300') would have exceeded the zoning by 150'.

Millennium Tower had a PDA applied and the City was heavily in favor due to the fact that the project included a rehab of the Filene's Burnham Building.

45 Province received variances from the Board of Appeal. That mechanism is also available to Midwood but the relief sought is clearly far in excess of what 45 Province sought and received. If Midwood could cobble together an acre site, then they could seek PDA approval too. When Midwood acquired One Milk diagonally across the street, I thought that might have been the play to try to do so. (Perhaps it still is?) The acre site can include more than one building and in fact need not be in single ownership. For example, if the site of Sam Lagrassa's adjacent to the project would get the site up to an acre (and I'm not saying that it would), Midwood could try to make a deal with the owner of the site to perhaps rehab the building or contribute a sum of money to do so, in exchange for the owner agreeing to the site's inclusion in the PDA. The PDA Development Plan could then include the rehab of that building as part of the plan.

 

[Equilibria]

The real "issue" they were concerned with is how much you exceed the zoning height. I think the BRA + BCDC were impartial to exceeding the zoning by like 100', but this thing is blowing the zoning to pieces by nearly 500'. The original One Bromfield at 28 stories (probably around 300') would have exceeded the zoning by 150'.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that holding a building to a 150' height limit when it has a 350' building on one side and a 685' building on the other is pretty silly. If the neighbors don't want height there, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Honestly this all seems like the same kind of "every tall building needs a variance" nonsense that every project in Boston faces and overcomes.

 

[dirtywater]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that holding a building to a 150' height limit when it has a 350' building on one side and a 685' building on the other is pretty silly. If the neighbors don't want height there, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Honestly this all seems like the same kind of "every tall building needs a variance" nonsense that every project in Boston faces and overcomes.

Agreed, except if well-heeled abutters choose to contest the variances, they may very well prevail. That's the beauty of a PDA. It is very difficult to mount a successful challenge to a PDA.

 

[tmac9wr]

just crappy math....i think this has BRA backing. just the feeling i get. BCDC seems to like it. i spoke with the presenting architect... he's being evasive about the rooftop height. cuz, it's well over 700??

me; "the top is well over 700'."

Him; "Umm, The height 683'. That's the BRA height....

me; "that's the deck height with three levels above so, it's going well over."

"uhh somewhat over. We're right at the FAA limit." his words.

It's cool to see the peak of the downtown skyline shifting towards South Station/Downtown Crossing. Potentially adding Bromfield, Winthrop Square, and South Station Tower to the skyline is going to be a total game-changer. It also seems possible that eventually the skyline shot from Boston Common may become as popular as the skyline shots from the Waterfront & the Charles River.

 

[stick n move]

Did anybody happen to show them the edited renders with out the over hangs?

 

[odurandina]

No. It was late. After the Q&A session with the board, everyone seemed in a rush to go home... Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith appeared to want to limit their exposure to the public and let their public relations firm be the contact point. But they certainly were more than friendly.

As with ourselves, it was pointed out by the board that the post-modernism cladding clashes with the neighbors (+ implicitly, w/ historic site/s nearby). I had Wiggy's podium suggestions compacted to a 1-liner - but once being informed of the complex nature of the cladding's role, and that it's just an early render – there was nothing to do but stfu.

As to getting into the particulars for the tower. I soon became overwhelmed about the firestorm that would be coming from 45 Province, Friends of the Public Garden and other neighborhood preservation groups.

I was particularly infuriated by the nimby with a well rehearsed public statement railing that this project is going to lead to a downward spiral of skyscraper proposals for the neighborhood/s - when the truth is far closer to 111 Fed and perhaps a few 350' towers coming up for Washington Street. False narratives that present vexing problems for 1 Bromfield must be squashed in the public before they have a chance to take root.

Project team's contact liason is Pamela McDermott;

http://www.mcdermottventures.com/

 

[whighlander]

I was also at the meeting and there are legitimate concerns about the height from a legal standpoint. This site falls in the Midtown Cultural District and is zoned for 155' max (without the mech penthouse). The site is actually too small to apply an Article 80 PDA overlay district because it is smaller than 1 acre, which is the PDA minimum size. If the BRA doesn't comprehensively amend the zoning, the BRA is at risk of establishing a site-by-site zoning precedent which will make the neighbors even angrier with the city. This was just the BCDC meeting to discuss design and none of this zoning talk is their jurisdiction. The BRA has to go about this in a smart way. I do not get the feeling that this is secretly greenlighted. Once the PNF is filed, it will go before the BRA Board and the height will come up. They're either going to have to break their own law by zoning this site individually without a PDA or they will have to revise the Midtown District (which they should, as it dates to the 60s).

Data -- this one has the same feeling as 1 Dalton -- it went from a few maps and some massing models to approval nearly overnight

We've had so many leaked renders from all possible perspectives in all the print, digital and TV media -- the fix is in -- this one is going forward after some tweaks to the podium

if the NIMBYs are really there for more than show -- I'd be surprised

 

[stick n move]

This is from an article in the globe dated jan 13' but the idea was around years before that. Even by this article alone its almost 3 years until shovels ever hit the ground.

 

[JumboBuc]

We've had so many leaked renders from all possible perspectives in all the print, digital and TV media -- the fix is in -- this one is going forward after some tweaks to the podium

Huh??? Not a single view of this was anywhere to be found until literally the day before it went in front of the BCDC. If there were any leaks they surely would have been posted on archBoston immediately.

 

[datadyne007]

Data -- this one has the same feeling as 1 Dalton -- it went from a few maps and some massing models to approval nearly overnight

We've had so many leaked renders from all possible perspectives in all the print, digital and TV media -- the fix is in -- this one is going forward after some tweaks to the podium

if the NIMBYs are really there for more than show -- I'd be surprised

1 & 30 Dalton were in a PDA that had been established for a while. The application to amend the PDA was submitted on July 19, 2013 when the project resurfaced.

"The First Amendment to the Master Plan would increase the permitted zoning height of the High-Rise Building to 691 feet and would increase the permitted zoning height of the Mid-Rise Building to 285 feet."

This is from an article in the globe dated jan 13' but the idea was around years before that. Even by this article alone its almost 3 years until shovels ever hit the ground.

Bingo.

 

[StillInTheHood]

We do all understand how this process works, right? At the risk of restating the blindingly obvious:

- Nothing is presented that hasn't been thoroughly vetted beforehand by the BRA; making public statements or floating proposals without running these traps (Chiofaro) is the sure way to ensure you go nowhere, and every developer knows this. ALL the proposals we see are ones that the BRA is inclined to approve, plus or minus some modest tweaks, and the structure of the BRA, indeed, their entire budget, depends on pushing as many large developments as they think can actually be completed. Again, this is why we should be pissed at the BRA for allowing that outrageous carport to ever see the light of day. They repeatedly have shown they pay no mind to the most obvious urban details.

- The tiresome kabuki around "how tall is it, exactly?" and the phrase "BRA height" could be avoided with the stroke of a pen. This concept historically has been abused by the BRA because it has often been politically convenient to portray height as less than it really is in relation to existing buildings, sometimes to the surprise of neighbors when something is well underway ... and the fudge factor has gotten larger as mechanicals have increased in size and all sorts of other "add-ons" are excluded from "BRA height." I'm generally all for density and as miffed as much of this forum about the Shadow Nazis, but this sort of deliberate obscurity is another reason the BRA is despised by the neighborhoods. Just tell us the damned height, please.

- The discussion about zoning, Article 80, etcetera, is misplaced. The BRA makes up its own rules as it goes along. Yes, a deep pocketed neighbor could sue, but that's true regardless, they'll paper it to make it difficult. If it is legally expedient to create a larger footprint, they'll just throw in the street itself; if they need variances, they'll get them, etcetera. Major concessions come when the level of public outrage puts heat on the body politic, specifically the mayor ... in which case the BRA's position is modified.

- There are likely some "sleeves off our vest" concessions that developer and BRA are ready to give on if the discussion gets a bit hot - typically projects wind up a little smaller and the sometimes gentle, more often heavy hand of VE will be applied to "lick off the frosting," which the BRA will later rubber-stamp as a project change, further from the public eye.

This is why to be exasperated with the BRA, even if you are pro-development (as I am) and in favor of this project, minus the obnoxious treatment of Bromfield. It's a lawless agency with very little aesthetic regard. Whether we get good buildings or bad ones is largely at the mercy of developers.

 

[FK4]

I was also at the meeting and there are legitimate concerns about the height from a legal standpoint. This site falls in the Midtown Cultural District and is zoned for 155' max (without the mech penthouse).

Wait, I'm so confused, I thought Midtown was in Widett Circle?????

JK.

We do all understand how this process works, right? At the risk of restating the blindingly obvious:

- Nothing is presented that hasn't been thoroughly vetted beforehand by the BRA; making public statements or floating proposals without running these traps (Chiofaro) is the sure way to ensure you go nowhere, and every developer knows this. ALL the proposals we see are ones that the BRA is inclined to approve, plus or minus some modest tweaks, and the structure of the BRA, indeed, their entire budget, depends on pushing as many large developments as they think can actually be completed. Again, this is why we should be pissed at the BRA for allowing that outrageous carport to ever see the light of day. They repeatedly have shown they pay no mind to the most obvious urban details.

- The tiresome kabuki around "how tall is it, exactly?" and the phrase "BRA height" could be avoided with the stroke of a pen. This concept historically has been abused by the BRA because it has often been politically convenient to portray height as less than it really is in relation to existing buildings, sometimes to the surprise of neighbors when something is well underway ... and the fudge factor has gotten larger as mechanicals have increased in size and all sorts of other "add-ons" are excluded from "BRA height." I'm generally all for density and as miffed as much of this forum about the Shadow Nazis, but this sort of deliberate obscurity is another reason the BRA is despised by the neighborhoods. Just tell us the damned height, please.

- The discussion about zoning, Article 80, etcetera, is misplaced. The BRA makes up its own rules as it goes along. Yes, a deep pocketed neighbor could sue, but that's true regardless, they'll paper it to make it difficult. If it is legally expedient to create a larger footprint, they'll just throw in the street itself; if they need variances, they'll get them, etcetera. Major concessions come when the level of public outrage puts heat on the body politic, specifically the mayor ... in which case the BRA's position is modified.

- There are likely some "sleeves off our vest" concessions that developer and BRA are ready to give on if the discussion gets a bit hot - typically projects wind up a little smaller and the sometimes gentle, more often heavy hand of VE will be applied to "lick off the frosting," which the BRA will later rubber-stamp as a project change, further from the public eye.

This is why to be exasperated with the BRA, even if you are pro-development (as I am) and in favor of this project, minus the obnoxious treatment of Bromfield. It's a lawless agency with very little aesthetic regard. Whether we get good buildings or bad ones is largely at the mercy of developers.

All true. Well said.

 

[odurandina]

Nothing is presented that hasn't been thoroughly vetted beforehand by the BRA....

^^^This part of your post gives me hope it can get done.

Maybe the Mayor, Mr Golden and the board want it.

I'm 70/30 this is the last +200m tower proposed for many years.

which makes the conversation about 325' towers and THIS.