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

[datadyne007]

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

See this is part of the problem. We don't really know if it's part of it or next to it. The district boundary was drawn around the site presumably because it was a parking lot in 1985 with no planned development. It is possible that indeed it's not part of the Mission Hill Triangle simply on a technicality of boundary line. Even so, the site still abuts the district and that should be taken into account. The 170' height is actually a Mission Hill standard in general. The Triangle height limit is no higher than the historic buildings.

 

[Arlington]

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.

NIMBYs *always* feel like nobody's listening to their "Not in Mine" objections--across all eras and types of projects. Conjuring the specter of Urban Renewal misunderstands that the singular problem with Urban Renewal was forced, mass, displacement of neighbors and the shattering of their social and economic networks.. Its not about their "voice" or opinions, its that we rounded them all up and strew them *away*

The problem with Urban Renewal was not that it un-Backyarded people (something all development does) it is that it un-neighbored them.

Here, exactly ZERO neighbors are being displaced. In fact, not even that many *cars* are being displaced (though a subtext is that it looks like neighbors' parking on the apartment's lots will be drastically curtailed, the number of spaces per City View occupants rises from <.2 cars/unit to .4 spots/unit.

Most change--evolutionary or disruptive--happens over the objections of neighbors who try to assert more control over their neighbors than they'd ever permit their neighbors to have over them. NIMBY captures this hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness also expressed as "I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city." That little voice inside all of usthat wants the costs of change to be borne by others has been named NIMBY. My other fave is the magical Mile-away Highway. Everyone wants a highway, so long as its a mile away.

I'm going to affirm your desires--they are psychologically healthy-- but not permit you to act from them--they make bad public policy.

 

[George_Apley]

Kind of confused at the way this debate is escalating... seems to me that Data's opening statement said four things, when the emotion is boiled away:

• The tower shouldn't directly abut the street, and should rather be setback to maintain a consistent streetwall.
• By presenting this design, the developer burned an important bridge with the community that won't be easy to win back.
• The proposal is not in compliance with zoning regulations, and cannot be built as designed without a zoning variance, which going back to the second point, will be much harder because the neighborhood is firmly against this developer.
• Worthington Street will be much busier than before, due to it being the main access point for parking.

Not seeing a ton to bitch about with these sentiments. I imagine if an empty lot was up for redevelopment off of Tremont Street, near Mass Ave in the South End, that was sited between 3 and four story townhouses, people wouldn't be suggesting that the neighborhood was wrong to oppose a 35 story apartment tower; just because the Symphony Towers are a block away... or maybe they would... seems to be pretty "us vs them" in this thread...

The important takeaway from this is that developers shouldn't burn bridges when they don't have to. If the tower could have set back to be more contextual with the neighborhood, the developer should have realized that, and presented a tower that placated that complaint. Probably many residents would still oppose it, but then at least the developer can say they tried to accommodate.

 

[datadyne007]

Kind of confused at the way this debate is escalating... seems to me that Data's opening statement said four things, when the emotion is boiled away:

• The tower shouldn't directly abut the street, and should rather be setback to maintain an consistent streetwall.
• By presenting this design, the developer burned an important bridge with the community that won't be easy to win back.
• The proposal is not in compliance with zoning regulations, and cannot be built as designed without a zoning variance, which going back to the second point, will be much harder because the neighborhood is firmly against this developer.
• Worthington Street will be much busier than before, due to it being the main access point for parking.

Not seeing a ton to bitch about with these sentiments. I imagine if an empty lot was up for redevelopment off of Tremont Street, near Mass Ave in the South End, that was sited between 3 and four story townhouses, people wouldn't be suggesting that the neighborhood was wrong to oppose a 35 story apartment tower; just because the Symphony Towers are a block away... or maybe they would... seems to be pretty "us vs them" in this thread...

The important takeaway from this is that developers shouldn't burn bridges when they don't have to. If the tower could have set back to be more contextual with the neighborhood, the developer should have realized that, and presented a tower that placated that complaint. Probably many residents would still oppose it, but then at least the developer can say they tried to accommodate.

Thank you. These are precisely my points with the emotion removed. I've bolded the most important point to me.

 

[davem]

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.

It's closer to an 80' setback, which is the distance to the bend in the L shape of the parking lot. They propose using that land as a park next to the pool.

I would say that a 40' setback would be fine, however (distance from the sidewalk to the midpoint of the rowhouses, where their roof is highest.

The setback would make the greatest difference when you are standing right in front. From the street, even a slight setback makes the tower and podium seem separate. Atlantic Wharf does this perfectly, granted it's podium buildings are two floors higher. But walking on the street you barely notice the tower above. 600 Washington, across from the Kensington, does this pretty well too.

It's the same principle as why you can stand right next to the empire state building and not have it LOOMING over you, while a much shorter 80s glass box can feel like it's going to crush your face.

 

[DZH22]

I imagine if an empty lot was up for redevelopment off of Tremont Street, near Mass Ave in the South End, that was sited between 3 and four story townhouses, people wouldn't be suggesting that the neighborhood was wrong to oppose a 35 story apartment tower; just because the Symphony Towers are a block away... or maybe they would... seems to be pretty "us vs them" in this thread...

However, in this case, there is a 20 story apartment building abutting this site, with others close by. They're not all a block away. One of them is right next door!

 

[Arlington]

Kind of confused at the way this debate is escalating... seems to me that Data's opening statement said...
[*] By presenting this design, the developer burned an important bridge with the community that won't be easy to win back.

My sense is that the neighbors were pre-disposed to ensuring that the bridge would be fully burned by the time the meeting was over, setbacks and streetwall or not.

It can't be that if you show pictures to people of what you want to build that they're permitted to be so offended that they can oppose everything you'll ever come up with.

Renders only burn bridges if you're already committed to seeing them burnt.

The developer may have over-asked at the initial meeting so that what he really wants will look "responsive" and "more reasonable"

Let's hope the neighbors are posturing too, hoping for better, but not expecting full satisfaction of their NIMBY desires.

 

[davem]

However, in this case, there is a 20 story apartment building abutting this site, with others close by. They're not all a block away. One of them is right next door!

Except where there are parking lots, you can not see any of the surrounding towers the entire length of Worthington. It is a narrow street with lots of trees. That's the whole thing, preserving the character of the intimate, humanly scaled street can be done while building a tower with a moderate setback.

The entirety of the issue is having something over 50' directly abut Worthington Street. The developer can have his cake and eat it too, but for some reason instead seems to want to throw it at someone.

 

[KentXie]

See this is part of the problem. We don't really know if it's part of it or next to it. The district boundary was drawn around the site presumably because it was a parking lot in 1985 with no planned development. It is possible that indeed it's not part of the Mission Hill Triangle simply on a technicality of boundary line. Even so, the site still abuts the district and that should be taken into account. The 170' height is actually a Mission Hill standard in general. The Triangle height limit is no higher than the historic buildings.

It seems very distinct in the BRA's zoning map that the current proposal is not part of the Mission Hill Triangle and the outline of the zone follows the parcel boundaries. Whether or not it's because at that point, there was no planned development should not matter. While the parcel does abut the triangle, the fact that on the same parcel sits another highrise, shows no precedent that it should take anything to account. And while the 170' height limit may be the Mission Hill standard, as you can see from the map, Mission Hill is littered with highrises above that height, 3 of which are in the direct vicinity, and of those 3, one sits on the same parcel.

 

[coleslaw]

Not seeing a ton to bitch about with these sentiments. I imagine if an empty lot was up for redevelopment off of Tremont Street, near Mass Ave in the South End, that was sited between 3 and four story townhouses, people wouldn't be suggesting that the neighborhood was wrong to oppose a 35 story apartment tower; just because the Symphony Towers are a block away... or maybe they would... seems to be pretty "us vs them" in this thread...

Apples and oranges. The South End is a massive area of similarly sized buildings this is one street of small surrounded by big.

 

[whighlander]

Kind of confused at the way this debate is escalating... seems to me that Data's opening statement said four things, when the emotion is boiled away:

• The tower shouldn't directly abut the street, and should rather be setback to maintain a consistent streetwall.
• By presenting this design, the developer burned an important bridge with the community that won't be easy to win back.
• The proposal is not in compliance with zoning regulations, and cannot be built as designed without a zoning variance, which going back to the second point, will be much harder because the neighborhood is firmly against this developer.
• Worthington Street will be much busier than before, due to it being the main access point for parking.

Not seeing a ton to bitch about with these sentiments. I imagine if an empty lot was up for redevelopment off of Tremont Street, near Mass Ave in the South End, that was sited between 3 and four story townhouses, people wouldn't be suggesting that the neighborhood was wrong to oppose a 35 story apartment tower; just because the Symphony Towers are a block away... or maybe they would... seems to be pretty "us vs them" in this thread...

Busses -- the key the whole proposal is that the 20 story tower is on the other side of the parking lot

The developer having purchased the 20 story tower a couple of years ago -- making the current proposal feasible since the inhabitants of the existing tower will be sharing the parking with the new projects inhabitants

http://www.burgessproperties.com/listings/detail/cityview-at-longwood

EXCLUSIVE LISTING
890 to 8,000 SF
Medical office and general purpose office space
$29.00 per SF

As Exclusive Agent for Equity Residential, Burgess Properties is pleased to offer this brand new medical office space for lease. Located virtually adjacent to Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Children's Hospital, this building has just been completely renovated with all new facade and common areas. Equity Residential has completely redone the apartments as well.

this map might help with the context matter:

 

[George_Apley]

Except where there are parking lots, you can not see any of the surrounding towers the entire length of Worthington. It is a narrow street with lots of trees. That's the whole thing, preserving the character of the intimate, humanly scaled street can be done while building a tower with a moderate setback.

The entirety of the issue is having something over 50' directly abut Worthington Street. The developer can have his cake and eat it too, but for some reason instead seems to want to throw it at someone.

Exactly. I totally get what Arlington is saying too: the residents may not want anything to be built and will make a stink regardless; but it takes two to tango. The developer could have ingratiated himself with more people (particularly the bureaucrats he'll need to sign off on this project) if he had at least made an attempt to make nice with the community. This presentation seems to have been an opening salvo at an opponent, rather than a measured, reasoned proposal to try to show critics he can be worked with.

It's about setting tone and creating trust, regardless of whether or not the neighborhood returns the favor.

 

[George_Apley]

Busses -- the key the whole proposal is that the 20 story tower is on the other side of the parking lot

The developer having purchased the 20 story tower a couple of years ago -- making the current proposal feasible since the inhabitants of the existing tower will be sharing the parking with the new projects inhabitants

http://www.burgessproperties.com/listings/detail/cityview-at-longwood

this map might help with the context matter:

You're not arguing with anything I'm saying. You're arguing against a strawman. Do you see on that map how there could have been a nice big setback on Worthington? The developer chose not to play nice with the neighbors. As I said above, it's the developers job to set a tone of cooperation, respect, and trust - even if the neighbors don't deserve it.

 

[whighlander]

You're not arguing with anything I'm saying. You're arguing against a strawman. Do you see on that map how there could have been a nice big setback on Worthington? The developer chose not to play nice with the neighbors. As I said above, it's the developers job to set a tone of cooperation, respect, and trust - even if the neighbors don't deserve it.

Busses -- in an ideal world they would:
1) bury the parking under a PO SQ type vest pocket park
2) build a 2 to 3 story modern but contextual 1 or 2 bay deep piece [retail and /or DR's offices] to complete the streetwall
3) pile up the rest as nice-ish 35 to 40 stories glass box behind the low rise portion rising right out of the edge of the park

But -- I don't think that is going to happen

 

[George_Apley]

Busses -- in an ideal world they would:
1) bury the parking under a PO SQ type vest pocket park
2) build a 2 to 3 story modern but contextual 1 or 2 bay deep piece [retail and /or DR's offices] to complete the streetwall
3) pile up the rest as nice-ish 35 to 40 stories glass box behind the low rise portion rising right out of the edge of the park

But -- I don't think that is going to happen

It's not about an ideal world, it's about not being the kind of developer who doesn't even hold a pretense of listening to the community. This is his opening pitch, and he botched it. Completely different than how, for example, Steve Samuels approached his early projects in the Fenway.

But even absent overtures to the neighborhood, this development will not happen as proposed because - wait for it - the bureaucrats on the zoning board will be pissed at the developer for angering the villagers, and making their lives even more miserable. This proposal will have to change to be built. and the developer knows it.

 

[whighlander]

It's not about an ideal world, it's about not being the kind of developer who doesn't even hold a pretense of listening to the community. This is his opening pitch, and he botched it. Completely different than how, for example, Steve Samuels approached his early projects in the Fenway.

But even absent overtures to the neighborhood, this development will not happen as proposed because - wait for it - the bureaucrats on the zoning board will be pissed at the developer for angering the villagers, and making their lives even more miserable. This proposal will have to change to be built. and the developer knows it.

Busses -- If you look at the map -- you will realize why the development will happen the key to this observation is the term Harvard Medical School

You can kind of think of this development coupled with the Cityview @ Longwood on the other side of the parking lot as Charles River Park @ HMS & B&W as opposed to the original one @ MGH

 

[davem]

Jesus Christ... no one sees the street from an aerial view. You see it from 5' off the ground.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.334...!1e1!3m2!1s3OGgn6b90QW1keE1ytj-9g!2e0!6m1!1e1

That is looking DIRECTLY at the 20 story tower. You can't see it, because the street is narrow and intimate. That's the entire issue. It doesn't matter that it's right there because the scale of the street prevents you from seeing ANY of the towers around. Seriously, streetview up and down Worthington. It doesn't matter that the street is surrounded by towers, on the historic street itself, it is isolated from them. A moderate setback would preserve this scale.

It's urban planning 101. This developer decided to ignore that and lob a grenade. For what reason, I haven't a clue.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

That's a massive building for the area. I see this getting shortened considerably before it gets approved.

 

[DZH22]

Jesus Christ... no one sees the street from an aerial view. You see it from 5' off the ground.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.334...!1e1!3m2!1s3OGgn6b90QW1keE1ytj-9g!2e0!6m1!1e1

That is looking DIRECTLY at the 20 story tower. You can't see it, because the street is narrow and intimate. That's the entire issue. It doesn't matter that it's right there because the scale of the street prevents you from seeing ANY of the towers around. Seriously, streetview up and down Worthington. It doesn't matter that the street is surrounded by towers, on the historic street itself, it is isolated from them. A moderate setback would preserve this scale.

It's urban planning 101. This developer decided to ignore that and lob a grenade. For what reason, I haven't a clue.

Your entire argument is that the people on that street shouldn't have to see anything taller than their own dwellings. You're arguing for the view. Same thing with Datadyne. When you turn onto Clarendon Street from Beacon, you can see the John Hancock Tower. WHO GIVES A SHIT?! Views aren't sacred, and this tight little street with the old buildings will not be altered. (outside of OMG A TALL BUILDING AT THE END OF THE STREET, in a supposedly big city, that is trying to grow but can't because we must not ever change the views at the end of a road!!!)

Millennium Tower is taller than most of the old buildings on Washington Street. Let's cap it at 12 floors!

 

[davem]

Your entire argument is that the people on that street shouldn't have to see anything taller than their own dwellings. You're arguing for the view. Same thing with Datadyne. When you turn onto Clarendon Street from Beacon, you can see the John Hancock Tower. WHO GIVES A SHIT?! Views aren't sacred, and this tight little street with the old buildings will not be altered. (outside of OMG A TALL BUILDING AT THE END OF THE STREET, in a supposedly big city, that is trying to grow but can't because we must not ever change the views at the end of a road!!!)

Millennium Tower is taller than most of the old buildings on Washington Street. Let's cap it at 12 floors!

Millennium has a setback.