A 35-storey building is out of scale w/ the low-rise buildings on that side of Tremont St, regardless of what else is there, or was there (55 years ago ..).
So. ....(understood; stated in allegory).
...is this a new fad? There's this one, and the proposal for the "high-rise" in Dudley Square, and even the 20+ storey building (approved) in Bay Village. All "non-traditional" areas for these.
i'll play heretic: These might be considered provocative transactions, but are they not in a major US city
starved for places to stick moderate increases in density? There are complex economic factors that are pushing it. And there are aggressive neighborhood groups of every disposition, personality, income and color generally opposed to development of every type.
Mission Hill residents are going to have to adjust to reality; cities grow. Sometimes nearly dramatically. Is there a dire need for the density contained in the original proposal to reach market the day after tomorrow? Possibly not. But, suppose they were to build this–but not many other such highrises in MH for a long time (it's happened before). Would people be saying in 20 or 30 years, 'My God, they sure went way too aggressive on height on that one. That thing really destroyed the neighborhood.'
???
No, i don't believe they would. There are renders for 45 Worthington that show the tower from vantage points along Huntington that suggest it would have taken it's place in the neighborhood without much fanfare.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8599/15807397280_c8780fe22d_b.jpg
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8645/15994663005_758a7edbfe_b.jpg
Instead, this looks like a take-down with help from sight unseen–but what is the goal? i don't see it being out of fear they will try to build 3 more. This stinks of something else. The BPDA has lost another battle in pushing for increased height and scale in Mission Hill. The growing city envisioned by the BPDA is getting hard push-back in other neighborhoods as well. i'm surprised the Bldg Dept didn't advise E.R. to hold their ground until Walsh II.
i enjoy public meetings because the people who oppose projects are often very nice and reasonable when you sit and talk with them. The impact advisory staffers are the ones who come off as aggressive and extreme imo.
For better or worse, we're heading toward a population edging closer to where we were in 1960 (or maybe 1950). But this is a far better, far more livable, and just City than in 1950.
i hope we can (occasionally) prioritize projects that impact the City's life blood over licentious gifts that benefit only a few and knock it out of the park. In this Boston, there are less tenements, less slums and some people live higher above the street.
Despite that
something will go up fairly dense, with the scaling back of Tremont Crossing and 45 Worthington, we've lost a very high number of affordable housing units. If we keep doing this, our efforts to make Boston a more-affordable city will continue to be greatly compromised. I believe it matters above other considerations that are less dire.
