Charles St. Jail Hotel

[Ron Newman]

I don't think you'll get approval for 10, let alone 20, stories on Newbury Street. Certain areas of the city have a sacrosanct height limit; this is one of them.

Move one block over to Boylston, you'll have more chance. Boylston also has more junky buildings that could use demolition.

 

[ablarc]

I don't think you'll get approval for 10, let alone 20, stories on Newbury Street. Certain areas of the city have a sacrosanct height limit; this is one of them.

Move one block over to Boylston, you'll have more chance. Boylston also has more junky buildings that could use demolition.

That's what you'll hear from most people, but in my experience if you far exceed people's expectations they'll often abandon conventional wisdom.

Not long ago a planning official said to me: "Show us something that we like and we'll approve it."

 

[sidewalks]

maybe so

A couple of things...

Planning officials can tell you anything they want. They may well want to approve a boldly designed building that exceeds the zoning envelope, but at the end of the day they are bureaucrats who are beholden to the mayor. If the community is loud enough, the city will almost always back down...

Ron inadvertently touched upon something that I have to address. His suggestion that the developer 'move over to Boylston street' is a statement often made by community members...and it drives me crazy. This isn't a simcity game where one can whimsically pick and chose a parcel of land to develop. Real Estate is not a liquid asset that is easily acquired...The suggestion that the developer 'move over a street' is as naive and ill conceived as it would be to suggest to a friend who complains about the weather, that he 'move to Florida'. The likely response is, 'yeah, thanks genius'. There is quite a bit tied up in such a decision. Such an offhanded comment can only be made by someone who doesn't really appreciate all the variables and contingencies that are involved in that decision...No offense intended, Ron.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: maybe so

A couple of things...

Planning officials can tell you anything they want. They may well want to approve a boldly designed building that exceeds the zoning envelope, but at the end of the day they are bureaucrats who are beholden to the mayor. If the community is loud enough, the city will almost always back down...

Ron inadvertently touched upon something that I have to address. His suggestion that the developer 'move over to Boylston street' is a statement often made by community members...and it drives me crazy. This isn't a simcity game where one can whimsically pick and chose a parcel of land to develop. Real Estate is not a liquid asset that is easily acquired...The suggestion that the developer 'move over a street' is as naive and ill conceived as it would be to suggest to a friend who complains about the weather, that he 'move to Florida'. The likely response is, 'yeah, thanks genius'. There is quite a bit tied up in such a decision. Such an offhanded comment can only be made by someone who doesn't really appreciate all the variables and contingencies that are involved in that decision...No offense intended, Ron.

Those are my sentiments exactly. The term "fungible" that some no doubt econ major brought up about oil is not applicable to real estate. Developers can't pick and choose parcels as they go.

 

[cityrecord]

Re: maybe so

A couple of things...

Planning officials can tell you anything they want. They may well want to approve a boldly designed building that exceeds the zoning envelope, but at the end of the day they are bureaucrats who are beholden to the mayor. If the community is loud enough, the city will almost always back down...

Ron inadvertently touched upon something that I have to address. His suggestion that the developer 'move over to Boylston street' is a statement often made by community members...and it drives me crazy. This isn't a simcity game where one can whimsically pick and chose a parcel of land to develop. Real Estate is not a liquid asset that is easily acquired...The suggestion that the developer 'move over a street' is as naive and ill conceived as it would be to suggest to a friend who complains about the weather, that he 'move to Florida'. The likely response is, 'yeah, thanks genius'. There is quite a bit tied up in such a decision. Such an offhanded comment can only be made by someone who doesn't really appreciate all the variables and contingencies that are involved in that decision...No offense intended, Ron.

Those are my sentiments exactly. The term "fungible" that some no doubt econ major brought up about oil is not applicable to real estate. Developers can't pick and choose parcels as they go.

While developers can't pick and choose parcels as they go, they can at least do a little thinking before acquiring a parcel or proposing a development. I've heard so many developers say "we can't make any money unless you let us have XXX floors or XXX units of housing" when grovelling for a zoning variance. Guess what? The economics of the site aren't the city's problem, the community's problem, or anyone else's problem. It's the developer's problem if they can't figure out a way to build profitably in a way that satisfies zoning. People act like there is a divine right to a zoning variance.

So yes, a developer should move over to Boylston Street if they want to build big. Can't find a building site on Boylston street? Boo-effin-hoo.

 

[ablarc]

Re: maybe so

A couple of things...

Planning officials can tell you anything they want. They may well want to approve a boldly designed building that exceeds the zoning envelope, but at the end of the day they are bureaucrats who are beholden to the mayor. If the community is loud enough, the city will almost always back down...

I was including the community in my assessment. Show the community something they really love and they'll actually agitate to get the bureaucrats to let it be built --even if it violates regulations. That has happened to two projects I'm involved with.

The time is propitious for that approach; people are figuring out that what the regulations bring them is mostly crap..

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: maybe so

A couple of things...

Planning officials can tell you anything they want. They may well want to approve a boldly designed building that exceeds the zoning envelope, but at the end of the day they are bureaucrats who are beholden to the mayor. If the community is loud enough, the city will almost always back down...

Ron inadvertently touched upon something that I have to address. His suggestion that the developer 'move over to Boylston street' is a statement often made by community members...and it drives me crazy. This isn't a simcity game where one can whimsically pick and chose a parcel of land to develop. Real Estate is not a liquid asset that is easily acquired...The suggestion that the developer 'move over a street' is as naive and ill conceived as it would be to suggest to a friend who complains about the weather, that he 'move to Florida'. The likely response is, 'yeah, thanks genius'. There is quite a bit tied up in such a decision. Such an offhanded comment can only be made by someone who doesn't really appreciate all the variables and contingencies that are involved in that decision...No offense intended, Ron.

Those are my sentiments exactly. The term "fungible" that some no doubt econ major brought up about oil is not applicable to real estate. Developers can't pick and choose parcels as they go.

While developers can't pick and choose parcels as they go, they can at least do a little thinking before acquiring a parcel or proposing a development. I've heard so many developers say "we can't make any money unless you let us have XXX floors or XXX units of housing" when grovelling for a zoning variance. Guess what? The economics of the site aren't the city's problem, the community's problem, or anyone else's problem. It's the developer's problem if they can't figure out a way to build profitably in a way that satisfies zoning. People act like there is a divine right to a zoning variance.

So yes, a developer should move over to Boylston Street if they want to build big. Can't find a building site on Boylston street? Boo-effin-hoo.

So basically, you're placing the burden on the developers and in affect blaming them for the lack of decent construction.

 

[cityrecord]

Who else would bear the burden for proposing a project that has a chance to get approved?

 

[Waldorf]

Zoning in Massachusetts is arbitrary. Everything is up for negotiation, especially in Boston. It is an unwritten rule that prevails today (and, as everyone knows, began since the founding of this country).

 

[cityrecord]

Zoning in Massachusetts is arbitrary. Everything is up for negotiation, especially in Boston. It is an unwritten rule that prevails today (and, as everyone knows, began since the founding of this country).

Zoning isn't arbitrary. The granting of zoning variances is arbitrary. There are some parts of the city however, where zoning variances are rarely given while in other neighborhoods zoning variances are easy to obtain. If a developer's first thought for a project is "I need a zoning variance to get this done and can't make any money unless I get the variance" I don't want to hear the developer whining about regulations or not getting a variance, especially if they're trying to build in the Back Bay or any other architectural conservation district in the city.

 

[aws129]

Just to be clear: It's not the city's duty to bend over backwards and accept whatever the developer wants.

I think we're sometimes a little too biased towards developers on this forum -- do we really believe that a developer should be allowed to build whatever wherever?

 

[Ron Newman]

This part of the discussion started with someone who had a (self-described) "vague" proposal to build well over the height limit on Newbury Street. He didn't indicate that he actually owned any property there. So I think my response was perfectly reasonable -- why don't you take your project somewhere else where it will encounter less resistance?

Newbury Street doesn't need "cleaning up", by the way. I'd love to see that parking lot developed, but surely this can be done in a way that respects the scale of the existing buildings surrounding it. After all, every other building there was put up within these constraints.

 

[sidewalks]

response...

The developer is forced to operate in a system that does not respect stated rules. The fact that the city does not enforce the zoning code honestly, creates repercussions with regard to land value and development strategy.

There's a saying that 'a donkey is a horse made by committee'. That perfectly describes Boston's zoning code. The well intentioned menino administration has pursued a planning strategy that gives a voice to every constituency. Inevitably, the most vocal advocates in the community are those who believe that development is bad and density is terrible. The result is a zoning code that is poor expression of land use policy. And though the neighborhood 'masterplans' that were created through extensive community input are hailed, they are not viable documents. The BRA is forced to play the bad guy on the back end- and support variances for developments that exceed an unrealistically restrictive zoning code. The developer always looks like the greedy tyrant pitted against the community. This works fairly well for the politicians who can kill any project that creates negative political fallout, and support projects that do not generate significant opposition.

But this is a very poor planning strategy. While variances should be all but impossible to secure, the zoning code must be radically revised to reflect real urban dimensions...this would not sit well with either the city or the community. Why? Because, a zoning code that REALLY allowed for As-of-Right development, would take away the city and the community's right to whimsically veto projects that may not meet with the approval of a self-appointed band of NIMBY activists .

As long as this haphazard system continues to exist, developers will continue to flaunt irrelevant zoning guidelines.

 

[sidewalks]

This part of the discussion started with someone who had a (self-described) "vague" proposal to build well over the height limit on Newbury Street. He didn't indicate that he actually owned any property there. So I think my response was perfectly reasonable -- why don't you take your project somewhere else where it will encounter less resistance?

Newbury Street doesn't need "cleaning up", by the way. I'd love to see that parking lot developed, but surely this can be done in a way that respects the scale of the existing buildings surrounding it. After all, every other building there was put up within these constraints.

I can only assume that naushoncap actually does own the parcel. No real developer would ever discuss a "proposal" for a site he does not already have under agreement. If he doesn't actually have the site under control, and is just spouting off about fantastical development plans, he isn't worth addressing as a credible developer.

 

[Ron Newman]

Ultimately, what you seem to object to is the local democratic process. Which, though flawed, is still preferable to the alternatives. (Those alternatives brought us, for example, Charles River Park.)

 

[sidewalks]

local democratic process

I respect your viewpoint Ron, and I think you bring a lot to this forum, but I also think you represent an ideology that has been disproportionately influenced by an era of developer and community relations that has long since ended. It feels to me like most of the 50-65 something year old 'community activists' are still fighting the battles of the 1960s.

With regard to the 'democratic process'...Boston is just about the only place that has this absurd permitting system. Planning and development should not be decided by a group of self important pontificators with too much time on their hands. That is not a democratic process. These community meetings are generally dominated by the same group of NIMBY activists who are the self-appointed arbiters of good city planning and design.

 

[Scott]

We get a lot of foolishness like that on this forum "you represent an ideology..." or you must believe x, y and z.

 

[bostonman]

Oh, sweet ?Liberty? by Suzanne Besser

Come June, the old jailhouse will be really rocking, though not to the tune of ?Jailhouse Rock.?

The jury?s in. After years of deliberation ? well, not really ? the Cambridge-based real estate developers Carpenter & Company, Inc., who have been transforming the old Charles Street Jail into a new 300-room hotel, have reached a verdict. It will call the hotel ?Liberty,? said Vice-President and General Counsel Peter Diana.

That?s Liberty, as in ?liberty and justice for all.? Oh, the irony of it all.

Diana said his marketing team just didn?t think a name such as the ?Old Charles Street Jail Hotel? or ?Inn Carceration? ? the goofiest name suggested to them ? would ultimately cause people to stay in their hotel.

?Liberty conveys the opposite of confinement,? said Diana, who has clearly forgotten that long-term confinements in hotel rooms bring increased revenues. ?Plus, the name gives it a revolutionary feel, a sort of colonial touch, which is appropriate for Boston.?

?I claim to plead ignorance on such matters,? said John Achatz, Beacon Hill Civic Association president who has worked for years on Cambridge Street developments. But he was quick to admit that he was not surprised at the name choice. ?After all, Boston is the cradle of liberty, and here the hotel is downtown,? he said. ?Anyway, it?s sort of a cute term for a jail.?

?A ?catchy? name,? Diana called it. Catchy, yes, but not catchy enough to house disruptive hotel guests in leftover jail cells. Only a few of the walls of the cells once used to house disruptive individuals in the past have been preserved in the lower two levels of the hotel. After guests check in at the main lobby on the second floor, they will pass several of the cell walls as they walk to the bank of elevators on their way to the guests rooms. Diana did not confirm that the cell walls were left there to remind guests of appropriate behavior.

While the guest rooms will be located in the newly-constructed building adjacent to the historic one, the old county jail will contain on its five floors meeting rooms, two restaurants, a bar, and a ballroom with large windows, suitable for those seeking escape from dancing the jailhouse rock with their partners.

http://www.beaconhilltimes.com/

 

[bosdevelopment]

Who else would bear the burden for proposing a project that has a chance to get approved?

well i added that you blame the developers.

 

[Scott]

^Um yes, if I wanted to add on my house and it is within zoning I can do that as of right. If the addition is beyond zoning then the burden falls on me to convince the city/town to allow me to build it.

If you think the area is zoned improperly or that zoning itself is unnessesary then those are different issues.