45 Worthington Street | 6 (née 35) stories, 141 (née 385) units | Mission Hill

[jpdivola]

Is this a debate over the current design or the scale?

Can the opponents come up with another way to fit 385 units on this plot of land? Is there maybe a happy middle ground that changes the design a little and still preserves the new housing?

 

[datadyne007]

Do you deny we have a housing shortage?

Not at all. I fully support the Mayor's vision for 10s of thousands of units. Build 40 story towers on Tremont (the other one that runs between Ruggles & Rox Xing Station). Build up that entire Orange Line corridor. Build up the West End (it's gone anyway). As I've said before, I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city.

I do not support this specific tower in the middle of a designated historic district with a zoning max of 170'.

 

[coleslaw]

Not at all. I fully support the Mayor's vision for 10s of thousands of units. Build 40 story towers on Tremont (the other one that runs between Ruggles & Rox Xing Station). Build up that entire Orange Line corridor. Build up the West End (it's gone anyway). As I've said before, I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city.

I do not support this specific tower in the middle of a designated historic district with a zoning max of 170'.

Ok then you are a NIMBY plain and simple.

 

[Arlington]

Is this a debate over the current design or the scale?

Can the opponents come up with another way to fit 385 units on this plot of land? Is there maybe a happy middle ground that changes the design a little and still preserves the new housing?

That sounds right. I'd say that the neighbors should be able to push the massing around, but not change the total mass.

We have a housing shortage. Everybody's backyard is fair game, particularly if it is an underused parking lot today. The solution is this project and many more like it, but there's got to be an option where it steps 20' further back from the curb and bulges 10' more on each side.

 

[DZH22]

As I've said before, I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city.

This is the true definition of NIMBY. It's ironic that it's no longer your backyard since you couldn't afford the place, but you want to prevent more housing being built in the immediate area that could help bring prices down.

 

[coleslaw]

This is the true definition of NIMBY. It's ironic that it's no longer your backyard since you couldn't afford the place, but you want to prevent more housing being built in the immediate area that could help bring prices down.

Crazy thing is I don't think he realizes it.

 

[Arlington]

Ok then you are a NIMBY plain and simple.

Technically, he's a NIMOBY ("old")

 

[whighlander]

Do you deny we have a housing shortage?

Slaw Mayor Walsh wants 30 to 50,000 new units in the next 15 years

However, that doesn't necessarily mean building 100 --- 30 story --- 300 unit towers

A whole lot of the about 2,000 to 3,000 units to be built on an average per year can come from building lots of 2 to 3 story infill projects of 6 to 10 units replacing a couple of single family houses on street corner with ground floor retail

Other major contributions can come from building some 8 to 12 story mid-rises with 25 to 50 units along the more important streets such as the current projects in the Bulfinch Triangle

And of course if the Olympics comes there will be 15,000 or so units in some sort of Olympic Athletes and Olympic Press villages

 

[datadyne007]

This is the true definition of NIMBY. It's ironic that it's no longer your backyard since you couldn't afford the place, but you want to prevent more housing being built in the immediate area that could help bring prices down.

Name calling is always a great way to argue. Show me a proposal at the 170' zoning height and then we'll talk, but right now this tower is technically illegal. A NIMBY is someone that doesnt want anything there. I do want something there.

 

[coleslaw]

Slaw Mayor Walsh wants 30 to 50,000 new units in the next 15 years

However, that doesn't necessarily mean building 100 --- 30 story --- 300 unit towers

A whole lot of the about 2,000 to 3,000 units to be built on an average per year can come from building lots of 2 to 3 story infill projects of 6 to 10 units replacing a couple of single family houses on street corner with ground floor retail

Other major contributions can come from building some 8 to 12 story mid-rises with 25 to 50 units along the more important streets such as the current projects in the Bulfinch Triangle

And of course if the Olympics comes there will be 15,000 or so units in some sort of Olympic Athletes and Olympic Press villages

Thank you captain obvious. But in many ways it is harder to build many small developments (look what is happening in JP right now). We need a mix of big and small projects. This is a big TOD project this is something we need.

 

[coleslaw]

Name calling is always a great way to argue.

NIMBY is not just calling a name it is saying that you are being a hypocrite due to the location of the development and that your opinion is not objective.

 

[393b40]

Practically speaking, how much influence does a neighborhood have to stop a development? We all assume it's a lot because Menino tended to listen to the neighborhood associations... but Menino's dead and Walsh seems ambitious. Can't the BRA (and the mayor) basically approve anything they want?

 

[whighlander]

Thank you captain obvious. But in many ways it is harder to build many small developments (look what is happening in JP right now). We need a mix of big and small projects. This is a big TOD project this is something we need.

Slaw -- I've never said that towers should not be built as part of the mix

By the way since I have a Ph.D -- that would be Dr. Obvious

 

[datadyne007]

your opinion is not objective.

Exactly the thinking that lead to urban renewal. "Well, we're doing this for the greater good." The local opinion didn't matter. We need housing, yes, but we don't need to be reckless with the strategy.

I support smart zoning throughout Boston.

High density corridors on major thoroughfares and near transit should be built high. Conservation Districts should be respected though, so despite the fact that this is *close to* (but not on) Huntington, this abuts a designated conservation district with strict zoning. That zoning should be respected. This is a very special case, and probably the only case (or one of the last few) in the entire city where this applies.

Existing lower-rise Boston neighborhoods should be infilled with appropriate sized developments, such as the 4-6 story infill buildings that have been going up in Allston/Brighton. This also includes Mission Hill outside of the Mission Hill Triangle District. There are many opportunities for development that are currently being developed in Roxbury & Mission Hill itself. I do not support plopping large towers in the middle of these communities to fulfill a housing quota.

 

[davem]

Didn't I make a massing model in the thread where we were talking about this last? I can't seem to find it.


Anyway, I whipped up a quick image of what should be going here vs the current proposal: (townhouses shown in the foreground)

vs this:

The issue is they don't want to build the new tower parallel with Cityview (I guess to not block it's city views), so instead they turning it 90° sideways, slamming a 35 story wall on Worthington.

To reiterate,
Tower somewhere on the site: Yes
Tower abutting Worthington St: No

 

[coleslaw]

Exactly the thinking that lead to urban renewal. "Well, we're doing this for the greater good." The local opinion didn't matter. We need housing, yes, but we don't need to be reckless with the strategy.

I support smart zoning throughout Boston.

High density corridors on major thoroughfares and near transit should be built high. Conservation Districts should be respected though, so despite the fact that this is *close to* (but not on) Huntington, this abuts a designated conservation district with strict zoning. That zoning should be respected. This is a very special case, and probably the only case (or one of the last few) in the entire city where this applies.

Existing lower-rise Boston neighborhoods should be infilled with appropriate sized developments, such as the 4-6 story infill buildings that have been going up in Allston/Brighton. This also includes Mission Hill outside of the Mission Hill Triangle District. There are many opportunities for development that are currently being developed in Roxbury & Mission Hill itself. I do not support plopping large towers in the middle of these communities to fulfill a housing quota.

Is this actually in the conservation area or just next to it? Are there not plenty of places around Boston with this problem? Next to an historic area =/= an historic area. This is a Transit corridor. I really do not see this as anything similar to urban renewal. They are replacing a parking lot not the whole street. Do all of the other examples cited already of sky scrapers around historic buildings destroy the building?

 

[whighlander]

Is this actually in the conservation area or just next to it? Are there not plenty of places around Boston with this problem? Next to an historic area =/= an historic area. This is a Transit corridor. I really do not see this as anything similar to urban renewal. They are replacing a parking lot not the whole street. Do all of the other examples cited already of sky scrapers around historic buildings destroy the building?

It might be better if from Worthington St that the tower looked a bit more like the townhouses in scale and materials

However looking at Google Street View and twirling around at 45 Worthington there are plenty of ugly modern structures within the immediate scope -- so I'm sorry -- However, it looks like the damage to the neighborhood has already been done

 

[DZH22]

Name calling is always a great way to argue.

It's not a name. It's an objective definition. Arlington got it right though, in this case it's NIMOBY.

Show me a proposal at the 170' zoning height and then we'll talk, but right now this tower is technically illegal.

Since when has Boston zoning been considered hard and fast? Unless it's FAA zoning, it can be changed or circumvented. Happens all the time here.

A NIMBY is someone that doesnt want anything there. I do want something there.

Exactly the thinking that lead to urban renewal. "Well, we're doing this for the greater good." The local opinion didn't matter. We need housing, yes, but we don't need to be reckless with the strategy.

What do you want? What's your proposal? Right now it's a parking lot. The problem with urban renewal is that it destroyed the existing city fabric. Wouldn't stitching it back together by developing empty lots be the antithesis of urban renewal?

 

[KentXie]

Not at all. I fully support the Mayor's vision for 10s of thousands of units. Build 40 story towers on Tremont (the other one that runs between Ruggles & Rox Xing Station). Build up that entire Orange Line corridor. Build up the West End (it's gone anyway). As I've said before, I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city.

I do not support this specific tower in the middle of a designated historic district with a zoning max of 170'.

Technically, this proposal is not in the designated historic district, but rather adjacent to it.

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_...vation District Commission map_tcm3-13526.pdf

 

[fattony]

Didn't I make a massing model in the thread where we were talking about this last? I can't seem to find it.


Anyway, I whipped up a quick image of what should be going here vs the current proposal: (townhouses shown in the foreground)

vs this:

The issue is they don't want to build the new tower parallel with Cityview (I guess to not block it's city views), so instead they turning it 90° sideways, slamming a 35 story wall on Worthington.

To reiterate,
Tower somewhere on the site: Yes
Tower abutting Worthington St: No

Really, that 20 foot setback makes all the difference? I think you are splitting hairs. When you are right under the tower the setback doesn't make much difference. The whole block is only 500 feet long, maybe the setback makes a difference to the people at the far end.

Nonetheless, I think the neighborhood can get the setback if they fight for it. They are going to pay a price for it, likely in the form of a cheap(er) facade.