11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

[tobyjug]

Maybe it would have worked if they put fiberglass cattle on Bromfield. It wouldn't have been worse than what they proposed for street level.

 

[tysmith95]

That place should have never died. I like it better than the Citgo sign! I remember passing by that on the way to Hockey Town as a child. Why did no one try to landmark that thing!

 

[sidewalks]

I seriously doubt that this gets built...you only need one litigant who has standing to overturn a variance. Every owner in Millennium place and 45 Province has standing...not to mention the multitudes of commercial condominium owners in the Jeweler's Building. Jewelers don't have a reputation as shrewd and tough businessmen for nothing. One lawsuit and this project is back to the zoning envelope at 155 feet.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I seriously doubt that this gets built...you only need one litigant who has standing to overturn a variance. Every owner in Millennium place and 45 Province has standing...not to mention the multitudes of commercial condominium owners in the Jeweler's Building. Jewelers don't have a reputation as shrewd and tough businessmen for nothing. One lawsuit and this project is back to the zoning envelope at 155 feet.

I don't think that is actually true. It has been well established in court that you don't "own your view", unless you have purchased air rights easements to protect it. It would be really hard for an owner on floor 45 of Millennium Tower to say "we didn't expect to see tall buildings here." (You mean like YOURS???)

Lovejoy Wharf would not exist if the condo owners behind it "owned their view" -- but they lost the case, for recent example.

 

[datadyne007]

I don't think that is actually true. It has been well established in court that you don't "own your view", unless you have purchased air rights easements to protect it. It would be really hard for an owner on floor 45 of Millennium Tower to say "we didn't expect to see tall buildings here." (You mean like YOURS???)

Lovejoy Wharf would not exist if the condo owners behind it "owned their view" -- but they lost the case, for recent example.

Yeah I don't think 45 Province & MT residents have "standing," but what does have legal standing is the fact that zoning allows for 155 feet and they are exceeding that by like 600 feet WITHOUT A PDA (& without one even possible). 45 Province only exceeded the zoning by like 100'.

 

[sidewalks]

If anyone is a zoning attorney here they can say with more authority, but I work in the business and have dealt with variances many times. One simply needs to show that one will have a direct and negative impact because of changes allowed by the variance. Abutters are automatically given standing. I believe the Jeweler's building is an abutter. Views aren't the only impact that one can claim. Traffic is the most obvious impact that one can claim and both the folks at 45 Province and Millennium Tower can easily make the claim that traffic will demonstrably worsen. Either way, a lawsuit need not be legitimate to succeed. Any court case will take a minimum of two years in land court to litigate.

 

[bigpicture7]

If anyone is a zoning attorney here they can say with more authority, but I work in the business and have dealt with variances many times. One simply needs to show that one will have a direct and negative impact because of changes allowed by the variance. Abutters are automatically given standing. I believe the Jeweler's building is an abutter. Views aren't the only impact that one can claim. Traffic is the most obvious impact that one can claim and both the folks at 45 Province and Millennium Tower can easily make the claim that traffic will demonstrably worsen. Either way, a lawsuit need not be legitimate to succeed. Any court case will take a minimum of two years in land court to litigate.

Yes but there's a distinction that's key - even though we all know that the "view" is the reason abutters fight this, they don't officially fight it on those grounds. They make up some other reason to fight it that they DO have rights to, such as other community impacts, traffic, shadows, etc...

 

[dirtywater]

Yeah I don't think 45 Province & MT residents have "standing," but what does have legal standing is the fact that zoning allows for 155 feet and they are exceeding that by like 600 feet WITHOUT A PDA (& without one even possible). 45 Province was WITH A PDA & only exceeded the zoning by 100'.

45 Province was not a PDA. The project received zoning variances from the Zoning Board of Appeal.

 

[datadyne007]

45 Province was not a PDA. The project received zoning variances from the Zoning Board of Appeal.

Apologies. Thanks for the clarification. I mistakenly conflated the Millennium Tower PDA with the 45 Province variance. Post edited.

 

[odurandina]

DD and i were both present at the unveiling of 1 Bromfield.

i was out of my element on much of the project's inherent design and construction challenges;

i came away with the opinion this one is a minor~major nightmare with an absolutely massive return. BPDA/Midwood; Keep the 709' tower (rooftip height), fix the podium and ram it through!!

2 Q's

1. i forgot; is a drive-in underground garage actually possible on this challenged parcel?

2. Weren't they going to do the new podium carport/garage as an elevator system?

+ loose change....

3. Despite the whole smash being so deplorably tight. The carport/shipping/receiving/sanitation station is an implicit, non-negotiable, critical element for a finished tower.

4. With the original plan for the new podium/fugly facade at the base now scrapped, the project is essentially already on life-support, as the most simple plan new becomes increasingly complex.

5. As lousy as the new podium in the original plan was to the casual observer, it's most crticial features will be required, in any case. Despite that i agree with Datadyne; that the architect team came off as

a. Not eager to discuss the project in detail with a nexceedingly warm audience (Greg Galer notwithstanding) who took the time to be there.

b. This was not helped by the BCDC seeming to just want to get the hell out of there. it was late; still it's a 709' skyscraper (WTF?). How often does a developer propose a 700' skyscraper, and pull out all the stops in Boston?

... i believe the design team made a significanly strong case for the original podium plan and facade, as astonishingly bizarre as it was at a glance. Once they got to explaining it, it made much better sense. i imagine the BCDC and BRA planning team took a very serious look at this before sentencing and dismissal.

Construction is going to be a nightmare. The finished tower's traffic pattern will be extremely challenging. it would seem to require the tower business deliveries/moving vans/sanitation be done only in the late hours, and the normal USPS/UPS/FedEx schedule will somehow have to be held in check. (Would curbing package delivery schedules be easy to accomplish)? All these complexities seem an area the design team was less-than-ideally prepared to address. Somewhat odd for such a large architect firm.

6. That being said, the overall presentation by Smith and Gill was extremely good. The sheer scale and quality of the proposal; AMAZING; They deserve due credit for presenting such a BOLD plan, and proposing a skyscraper with such credible design standards (a la Millennium partners).

We are in unchartered territory. Therefore, i'm also left with the impression that the Design Commission was curt with sacking the proposal so quickly (just my impression).

7. do you all recall why they did the new podium facade the way they did? it was for the purpose of using the glass to

a. blend in with the tower above. Not altogether terrible on it's merits. But the obvious shouts out loudly: not here.

b. to use a special tinted glass to give off the appearance of an actual podium while in reality, it's cloaking headlight glare from the cars.

8. There's one aspect of the tower base that was overlooked: as well-conceived as the plan may be; they missed assessing value to the community of the site's most beloved retail element - Payless! It would have been a valuable gesture on the part of Midwood, AS, and GG if they had done their homework, and discovery, and come out saying, 'we're looking at every option that would allow 1 Bromfield Street to keep the Payless!' ....They're your tenant for crissakes.

9. This leaves us with the following choices, none of which the neighborhood would likely be prepared to support;

a. underground garage w/ elevator system with carport incoporated into a new podium with Payless returning to past glory.

b. underground garage w/ elevator system with with carport incoporated into a new podium facadectomy with Payless returning to past glory.

c. underground garage w/ elevator system with with carport incoporated into a new podium with no Payless.

d. underground garage w/ elevator system with with carport incoporated into a new podium facadectomy with no Payless.

e. above-ground garage w/ elevator system with carport incoporated into a new podium with Payless up on a higher level, returning to past glory.

f. above-ground garage w/ elevator system with carport incoporated into a new podium facadectomy with Payless up on a higher level, returning to past glory.

g. above-ground garage w/ elevator system with carport incoporated into a new podium with no Payless returning to past glory.

h. above-ground garage w/ elevator system with carport incoporated into a new podium facadectomy with no Payless returning.
.

 

[DZH22]

So much speculation here. Does anybody know if/when we should expect to see revisions? I'm frustrated that this thread returned from the dead without any actual news.

 

[Beton Brut]

I'm frustrated that this thread returned from the dead without any actual news.

Perhaps I should start a thread in General about the decline and death of Frank Guiffrida's Hilltop and other Route 1 eateries and amusements on the North Shore...

 

[DZH22]

Perhaps I should start a thread in General about the decline and death of Frank Guiffrida's Hilltop and other Route 1 eateries and amusements on the North Shore...

Completely different but also frustrating. I was devastated the day I found out that Revere Beach used to have 3 massive roller coasters that I never had the opportunity to ride.

Also, whatever did happen to that cactus sign? When I was a little kid I used to think Route 1 was Las Vegas.

 

[chmeeee]

]
Also, whatever did happen to that cactus sign? When I was a little kid I used to think Route 1 was Las Vegas.

It was still there last time I drove by.

 

[tobyjug]

If anyone is a zoning attorney here they can say with more authority, but I work in the business and have dealt with variances many times. One simply needs to show that one will have a direct and negative impact because of changes allowed by the variance. Abutters are automatically given standing. I believe the Jeweler's building is an abutter. Views aren't the only impact that one can claim. Traffic is the most obvious impact that one can claim and both the folks at 45 Province and Millennium Tower can easily make the claim that traffic will demonstrably worsen. Either way, a lawsuit need not be legitimate to succeed. Any court case will take a minimum of two years in land court to litigate.

I think that you are close enough!

The city allows height increases because it gives the city maximum discretion to deny. Menino was king of this sort of thing. It is a crappy way to plan a city.

Anyway, for the actual legal standards, I cut and pasted the following discussion of standards from an old pleading of mine. So enjoy (or nod off), and read No 1 and No 7 closely:

1. The Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A § 10, provides that a variance may only be granted if the:
permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.

2. The long-settled rule in interpreting G.L. c.40A §10 is that an applicant for a variance is not entitled to any relief and that the permit granting authority has broad discretion to deny the application even if evidence shows that the variance could have been granted. See Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. 555, 557 (1954). The rule provides that no “person acquires a legal right to a variance by bringing himself within the terms” of the variance requirements. Id. An applicant satisfying the statutory requirements “merely gives a discretionary power to the board to be exercised, if at all, only on the conditions set forth therein.” Id.

3. “Variances are always in derogation of the zoning system adopted by the [City] under its lawful powers. Since [the local zoning bylaw] confers upon the landowner only an opportunity and not a right, if the board of appeals decides against him he commonly has no right enforceable in court.” Id.

4. The Board, as the local authority familiar with the conditions in the City, is vested with the power to, in strictly limited circumstances, grant relief from local law. Id. This limited power does not, however, require that a variance be granted in any particular case. See Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hadley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 710, 715 (1981).

5. An applicant for a variance bears the burden of proof in establishing that all prerequisites for the issuance of a variance set forth under G.L. c. 40A, §10 have been satisfied. Warren v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst, 383 Mass. 1, 10 (1981); Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423, 427 (1984).

6. The statutory criteria for a variance must be strictly construed, and even where the applicant shows evidence regarding the statutory requirements, a variance is to be sparingly granted. See, e.g., Damaskos v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 359 Mass. 55, 60-61 (1971); Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329, 331-31 (1993); Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 217 (1982); Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423, 427 (1984).

7. As the Appeals Court held in Guiragossian v. Board of Appeals of Watertown, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 111, 115 (1985), rev. den., 396 Mass. 1105 (1986), “ince the requirements for the grant of a variance are conjunctive, not disjunctive, a failure to establish any one of them is fatal.”

8. On appeal, the burden is on the party seeking the variance to produce evidence that the statutory requirements have been met and that the variance is justified. Blackman v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 334 Mass. 446,450 (1956); Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547, 555-556 (1962); DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeal of Rockport, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 339, 350, rev. den., 394 Mass. 1103 (1985).

 

[JeffDowntown]

I would just point out that virtually everything built in the City of Boston has to have a zoning variance. So regardless the statute and case law, the ZBA approves variances every week. Our zoning in the city is so archaic that it is dysfunctional.

 

[dirtywater]

I think that you are close enough!

The city allows height increases because it gives the city maximum discretion to deny. Menino was king of this sort of thing. It is a crappy way to plan a city.

Anyway, for the actual legal standards, I cut and pasted the following discussion of standards from an old pleading of mine. So enjoy (or nod off), and read No 1 and No 7 closely:

1. The Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A § 10, provides that a variance may only be granted if the:
permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.

2. The long-settled rule in interpreting G.L. c.40A §10 is that an applicant for a variance is not entitled to any relief and that the permit granting authority has broad discretion to deny the application even if evidence shows that the variance could have been granted. See Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. 555, 557 (1954). The rule provides that no “person acquires a legal right to a variance by bringing himself within the terms” of the variance requirements. Id. An applicant satisfying the statutory requirements “merely gives a discretionary power to the board to be exercised, if at all, only on the conditions set forth therein.” Id.

3. “Variances are always in derogation of the zoning system adopted by the [City] under its lawful powers. Since [the local zoning bylaw] confers upon the landowner only an opportunity and not a right, if the board of appeals decides against him he commonly has no right enforceable in court.” Id.

4. The Board, as the local authority familiar with the conditions in the City, is vested with the power to, in strictly limited circumstances, grant relief from local law. Id. This limited power does not, however, require that a variance be granted in any particular case. See Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hadley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 710, 715 (1981).

5. An applicant for a variance bears the burden of proof in establishing that all prerequisites for the issuance of a variance set forth under G.L. c. 40A, §10 have been satisfied. Warren v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst, 383 Mass. 1, 10 (1981); Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423, 427 (1984).

6. The statutory criteria for a variance must be strictly construed, and even where the applicant shows evidence regarding the statutory requirements, a variance is to be sparingly granted. See, e.g., Damaskos v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 359 Mass. 55, 60-61 (1971); Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329, 331-31 (1993); Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 217 (1982); Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423, 427 (1984).

7. As the Appeals Court held in Guiragossian v. Board of Appeals of Watertown, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 111, 115 (1985), rev. den., 396 Mass. 1105 (1986), “ince the requirements for the grant of a variance are conjunctive, not disjunctive, a failure to establish any one of them is fatal.”

8. On appeal, the burden is on the party seeking the variance to produce evidence that the statutory requirements have been met and that the variance is justified. Blackman v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 334 Mass. 446,450 (1956); Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547, 555-556 (1962); DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeal of Rockport, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 339, 350, rev. den., 394 Mass. 1103 (1985).

Helpful, but Chapter 40A does not apply in Boston. While the standards for a variance are similar, the Boston Zoning Enabing Act,Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956 applies to Boston.

 

[tobyjug]

Helpful, but Chapter 40A does not apply in Boston. While the standards for a variance are similar, the Boston Zoning Enabing Act,Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956 applies to Boston.

You are exactly right, of course, so "A" for you! I am a lazy old dog for just throwing an old pleading out to our readers. My pals who are former members of the Board will be roasting me and will give me an "F" for effort! In my embarassed defense, 40A more clearly illustrates the issues, and the standards are similar enough for that purpose, viz:

6. The statutory criteria for a variance must be strictly construed, and even where the applicant shows evidence regarding the statutory requirements, a variance is to be sparingly granted. See, e.g., Damaskos v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 359 Mass. 55, 60-61 (1971); Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329, 331-31 (1993); Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 217 (1982); Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423, 427 (1984).

 

[odurandina]

To be clear, NIMBYs aren't only anti-height. We need some moderate resistance to get better designs and public investment from developers, otherwise we'd have a lifeless, cold, boring Boston. 1 Bromfield was a mess at ground level in the original design.

revenue, revenue, revenue!!

The most under-defended reason given for smart building in Boston. 1 Bromfield was well conceived and well designed to bring a ~420 new families to DTX, pay for more affordable units elsewhere. And there was it's huge, permanent revenue package. Pretty ambitious! Creating a super-dense block currently occupied by a 20th Century building can turn out to be awesome.

But that render, clever as it was (to cloak all that parking into the lower levels) probably wasn't it. The original building is probably too nice to discard – even if a homogenious tower is better off a clean sheet of paper. Privitizing most of a city block in a historic part of Boston was never going to be an acceptable outcome.

i think the ambitious scale needs to stay. But, the plan was pretty arrogant - added to a possible traffic/delivery dilemma (no one seems to have the answer to that) They might need to do some garage levels below grade, leave some additional retail above. A facadectomy of the handsome street wall might be the solution with the fewest objections.

 

[Reznor]

Thanks for the completely unnecessary bump.