Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

?But we will be looking very carefully at its environmental impact, including shadows, wind, solar glare, and traffic.?
Solar glare? Next to a 790 foot GLASS tower. Anyone else find that funny!?

Yea that's pretty ridiculous, and it's the first time I've ever heard that in one of these arguments so at least they're being creative and making up new reasons...I agree it's especially funny they're bringing up "solar glare" next to the Hancock. Instead of them using all those fancy words like "environmental impact" and "solar glare" why didn't they just say "we're just waiting for some solid details on this project to come out so we can have some grounds to prevent it from being built."
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^exactly.... they are disguising their arguments using fancy terms for poor arguments
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Copley Tower closer to reality
By David Solar, South End News

The developers of the proposed 47-story Copley Tower filed a Project Notification Form with the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) June 23, taking the next step in making the controversial project a reality. The PNF follows the Letter of Intent Simon Malls filed in March 2008, announcing their intention for the proposed Copley Place renovation.

The project notification further outlines the developer?s plans to build the 47-story tower on top of the existing Neiman Marcus; according to the plans, the developer will add 60,000 square feet of new retail, along with the expansion of the store from 115,000 to 169,000 square feet. Residential housing will accompany this retail space, with 280 condominium units accounting for 660,000 square feet, more than seven times the space used for the initial Copley Place Development.

Originally built in the early 1980s, the Copley Place Development was instrumental in linking together the South End and the Back Bay while stimulating economic growth. The success of the development was retail-based, as only 2.5 percent of the project?s 3.4 million square feet were developed as residential.

The project will also take over the southwest corner of Stuart and Dartmouth Street, now a paved entry plaza to Neiman Marcus featuring outdoor seating and two metal sculptures of horses. The Simon Group hopes this provides a more alluring entrance from, while by extending the sidewalks they can better channel traffic and bring more activity to the area.

"At the heart of our design thinking is the creation of a pedestrian-friendly public realm, which opens up the fa?ade to reveal a new winter garden and the dining and shopping activity within as well as a building that will complement the landmark structures of the Back Bay," said Howard Elkus, principal of Elkus Manfredi Architects of Boston and one of the architects for the project, in a press release issued by the developer.

This project also promises several other benefits: construction could lead to around 1700 jobs and, in accordance with the city?s Inclusionary Development Policy, affordable housing units. The proposed expansion could also generate $7.2 million in new annual property taxes for the city of Boston.

Local residents, who are concerned that the 47-story building could cast vast shadows over the city, increase traffic and resident density, and lead to stronger wind gusts, have expressed their anxiety over the project. With the current tallest building in the Copley Place complex being the 36-story Westin Copley Plaza, the expansion would tower above the city?s skyline. Some, like Ted Pietras, a member of the project?s recently convened Citizens Advisory Group and a longtime South End resident and realtor, remain skeptical of the project. Although he says he hasn?t heard enough to make a decision yet, Pietras said, "People ask for the 47 stories, but at the end of the day they know they?re not getting it."

He went on to question the replacing of an outdoor plaza with a glassed-in public garden, as the Simon proposal indicates, saying he doesn?t, "consider [the] winter garden to be a real good public space."

After the submission of the project notification, the project will now be under review until August 8, when the comment period ends. If there are any serious public concerns with the proposed project, the BRA "may require the developer to change the project?s design or to take other measures to reduce those impacts." The BRA will also be hosting a public meeting on July 15 at 6:30 p.m. at the Boston Public Library located at 700 Boylston St. in Copley Square. At that time, the Simon Property Group will address the audience and take questions from concerned citizens. Please contact John Fitzgerald at John.Fitzgerald.BRA@cityofboston.gov or call at 617.918.4267 with any questions about the project or the meeting.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

"People ask for the 47 stories, but at the end of the day they know they?re not getting it."


sad but true
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Local residents, who are concerned that the 47-story building could cast vast shadows over the city, increase traffic and resident density, and lead to stronger wind gusts, have expressed their anxiety over the project. With the current tallest building in the Copley Place complex being the 36-story Westin Copley Plaza, the expansion would tower above the city?s skyline. Some, like Ted Pietras, a member of the project?s recently convened Citizens Advisory Group and a longtime South End resident and realtor, remain skeptical of the project. Although he says he hasn?t heard enough to make a decision yet, Pietras said, "People ask for the 47 stories, but at the end of the day they know they?re not getting it."
There are a bunch of things to laugh at in this paragraph..
It will cast VAST shadows over the CITY? The whole city? That would be an awefully tall and extremely FAT building.
We wouldn't want resident density. Oh no! It's plently dense for the select and priveledged few that get to grace us with their presence.
Lastly, it would "tower above the city's skyline"? I have no response for that. That is just plain dumb.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I can understand when residents complain about losing views and parking spots, but shadows? Wind Gusts? C'mon, it's getting to the point now where anything that is proposed is getting hammered with anything that could possibly be a result of the tower getting built. The "shadows" argument seems to be the go-to one for the anti-development crowd, and it's ridiculous but some of the other stuff is just plain unbelievable.

And adding density and traffic? It's a CITY. That's where density belongs and the traffic that results from it is to be expected. I just don't see how these arguments are valid and why the BRA and other agencies continue to listen to these groups.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I wonder if there are any of these nimby/anti-development people in NYC and how they are dealt with in light of a development project. Why is it so hard here to get anything done?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

They really need to shed the whole "NIMBY" name...Boston is just filled with BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). The quote: "...the expansion would TOWER over the city's skyline" is just ridiculous...it is DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE TALLEST BUILDING IN THE ENTIRE CITY. Why don't they just get to the point?! It drives me insane that we are always teased with promising projects only to have it shot down because people are completely baffled by the fact that a 47-story tower casts a shadow and therefore do all they can so they won't have a shadow near their home which lasts for 20 minutes at 6am for half of the year. There's always a quote like "well we need some details so we can review this controversial project", but there's no review, they just don't want anything built in this city, ever. Just put a giant sign over the city saying "Developers, don't even bother"...but then again who knows what kind of shadows a gigantic banner would cause, so maybe they should just use email.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Not only are the shadows a crazy argument, but being upset about that plaza replaced by a winter garden!!!???

I have NEVER seen any person use that plaza except to enter or exit the mall. It's not a very pedestrian friendly place as it is. There is a fence that shields it from the off-ramp of the Mass Pike so it's not even that easy to use!!

Crazy people!!
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^Yea it's it's a bit odd. We haven't had a chance to see the Winter Garden, but it's not like the all-brick plaza is a huge hangout.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

This also reminds me of the Druker proposal next to the Colonnade Hotel. It started as a nice slim tower that had some architectural merit. Since the South End community complained, he squeezed about the same number of units into a squat, and extremely ugly building IMO.

Gosh, we end up with a lot of sqat, ugly buildings around here. Not every building needs height, but architects spend a lot of design time make a building appear interesting and contextual. When a community group lops off 3-4 floors or more, I don't think the architects have the time or money to reinvest in the "total" design effort that is needed, so we end up with mis-proportioned buildings. Again......IMHO
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Yea, it needs to be economically feasible so architects are forced to make fat, ugly boxes. One thing that has always puzzled me is, most of the people who are complaining about these skyscrapers are living in Back Bay, Beacon Hill, or the South End...which are all wealthy areas. Now if I were a wealthy person with any form of taste, I would rather look at a building with some architectural merit than a building that is fat, ugly and uses cheap materials--even if that meant I was going to have to deal with a shadow near my place for 20 minutes a day. If they truly want what's best for the city, instead of bitching about the height, shouldn't these be people be bitching about architects making quality-designed buildings for our city?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Given that Ted Pietras is a realtor in the South End, he has an explicit interest to NOT allow, or at least minimize, any new residential construction to keep prices up, in addition to the usual NIMBY complaints. This is a blatant conflict of interest and that man has no business being on a review panel because of it.

We don't put gang leaders and drug dealers on the committees locating police stations do we?

Then again, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that a circus ensues, when we put clowns in charge.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I would argue that the BRA has gotten a lot better at pretending to listen to NIMBYs and then ignoring them.

The Mayor's very strong support of Columbus Center IMO represents a gradual shift in the city's attitudes towards these projects. It's almost as if, by being mayor for so long, Menino himself sees the "usual suspects" at every development meeting, year after year, and has begun writing them off as 100% anti-progress no-matter-what.

So when a new project like this Copley Place tower is announced, and the usual suspects come out swinging, they're met by a giant, collective YAWN by everyone at the BRA. You can't be anti-progress 100% of the time and expect anyone to take you seriously on any one given project.

Development opponents usually fall into three generalized categories:

1) "I could care less about this type of stuff 99% of the time, but this building will block my personal view of the Charles, so I am against this particular project for my own, very personal reasons." Literally Not-in-my-backyarders"

2) I oppose ALL new development in the city that is over 3 stories. I am against all progress and growth - let's freeze time and live in an open air museum that only the super wealthy can afford. But let's give free housing to poor people as long as they promise to stay in Roxbury. (Marty Waltz, Shirley Kressel, et al)

3) I have a legitimate concern that this project will harm the city. I don't live or work near it, but I am a person with a vested interest in the city and I am not happy. (Shreve Crump & Low preservationists generally fall into this category - they honestly and actually care about something that does not harm their own property in any manner)

I believe the mayor and the BRA have been shifting towards listening only when the third group gets involved.

After years of the same tired arguments, Marty Waltz saying a building is "out of scale" carries the same weight in this city as a crazy homeless person saying "good morning" to a park bench. Who cares?

I believe that 73%-Approval-Rating-Menino has figured this all out - the jig is up. His strong support of Columbus Center is proof.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I just don't see how these arguments are valid and why the BRA and other agencies continue to listen to these groups.

The developers, the BRA and the mayor's office listen to these neighborhood groups cause these groups, if they feel snubbed, then hire attorneys to tie things up in the courts. Heck, look at the fuss NABB made over the new headhouses at the Copley/Arlington T entrances to make them handicapped accessible. How much NABB cost the T is only anyone's guess.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

EDITED

Okay, let me put it another way. I don't see any "conflict of interest" in having a real estate agent on the board. In fact, if you didn't, then everyone would say that the board wasn't representative of the community.

Ted is not only a real estate agent, he is also a member of the community.

I can certainly understand your point of view that a real estate agent is interested in limiting supply, but I've never heard anyone ever make that argument.

In fact, it is usually the opposite argument: real estate agents want as much development as possible, in order to make more sales.

It can't be both ways, can it?

I think one reason I, myself, wasn't chosen for the board was that it was known by the selection committee that I, as a real estate agent with an active blog, support any development, of any size, in any place.

I'm going to assume Ted is taking a broader view of things, and that he's far wiser than I.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^Yea it's it's a bit odd. We haven't had a chance to see the Winter Garden, but it's not like the all-brick plaza is a huge hangout.

It's almost their way of grasping at straws. Anything that can be used as a negative reason NOT to build this or any other project, they're going to use. They call for reviews or say they themselves are going to fund them. What happens? Nothing. There's rarely (if ever) a review presented. However, they accomplish their main goal. Stall the process long enough where the price of construction rises, the developer's patience wears thin, and they can think of a few other ludicrous things that will cause havoc to the city should [insert project name here] get built.

It's sad enough when in order to get a 30-something tower, developers ask for a 40-something tower, knowing that their proposal will be knocked down to what they wanted in the first place.

It's just mind boggling to me that these people have this sort of power. I can understand legitimate issues that have been proven factual by studies (pollution as an example). But just because you disagree with a project doesn't make it wrong.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

The developers, the BRA and the mayor's office listen to these neighborhood groups cause these groups, if they feel snubbed, then hire attorneys to tie things up in the courts. Heck, look at the fuss NABB made over the new headhouses at the Copley/Arlington T entrances to make them handicapped accessible. How much NABB cost the T is only anyone's guess.

See, no matter what the process is stalled. I guess that's my main gripe. I understand some of the concerns raised with certain projects that have been proposed and/or built. I'm pro-development but I'm not "Build it at all costs", so I see things from their perspective a lot of the time. Whether I agree with them is a different story. The problem is their power in fillabustering projects (see the Mass Pike Parcel project) doesn't do anyone good. If they're given a hearing with the BRA and Mayor's Office and they don't get the result they're looking for, it's on to the lawyer's anyways. You can't win with them.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Menino probably is starting to ignore the crazies because he looks at that 7.2 mill a year and knows he needs all the tax revenue he can get.

I know people complain about the shadows arguement as complete bullshit, but for some laughable reason, people, older people it seems, REALLY care about shadows, its not just anti development.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

What we need is a Dubai Rotating Tower for Copley Place -- with each roughly rectangular floor free to rotate separately

Then the tower could be dynamically reconfigured to minimize shadows depending on the angle of the sun

Or even better yet -- there has been real progress made with "cloaking device" technology -- so far it works for microwaves (they pass around the object and to an outside observer there is no way to "see the object") and soon such a technology with optical wavelengths might become real -- then the sun would just pass around the tower (as if it wasn't there) and not cause a shadow.

A side benefit is that such a cloaked tower could be hundreds of meters tall and no one would even be aware of its existence (except of course Marty Walz who has a built-in tower detector)

Westy (once again somewhat tongue in cheek) -- but Google cloaking if your don't believe the basic stuff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top