Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I just want to add a few things from my notes to what KZ said regarding what was said at the meeting. I'm not too familiar with names of people (such as commentators) so bear with me.
During the presentation, Elkus talked about the building form and use of glass, stating that the top floors of the tower will have a smaller footprint than that of the Custom House Tower. The tower is designed to diminish its impact, and combined with its curvature and glass facade will create variable light/shadow conditions, further minimizing its impact (i.e. shadows).
The developer talked about the complexity of the site, particularly the ramp, which rises six feet above the relative street level, and he talked about how the streets nearby had to be raised up to meet the ramp (and you can see how this was done, but I missed this part). On the Stuart St. side, while having glass on three floors (2 restaurants, 3rd floor retail), the sidewalk is pretty dead. Only at the end did someone ask about fixing the ramp merger to make more pedestrian friendly. Developer just said they were still trying to resolve issues with the Stuart St. side and the ramp (but clearly from previous discussions it was implied there isn't much they can do).
Byron Rushing, besides sauntering in late and shilling for votes, wanted a PruPac type committee to control and look at the entire complex, not just what was proposed (and I assume have more control).
A lady I believe now was Shirley Kessel (I don't know these characters though, just going off of KZ), got into a long argument with the developer over the plaza and replacement winter garden, whether either is or will be public open space (developer kept saying "yes" but in a completely different sense than what she wanted). Developer stated that the existing plaza is not public open space by any agreement.
Lots of concern over process for approval, whether city zoning and Turnpike authority will be used to protect the development from lawsuits like Columbus Center. Repeated questions about forgoing public funds; developer hedges at first but finally says a definite "no," at which point several people got excited and said "We got witnesses!"
Someone from the CaC spoke near the end and said the project wasn't needed at all. He was clearly using the developers strategy against them (that NM needs to expand to be economically viable, and for Simon to expand the site they need the tower for it to be economically viable for Simon.). Why can't you expand NM without a tower? (about 5-6 clapped at this). Several questions of low income housing aspect; seemed to be general support for it to be on-site.
Someone asked about public art in the winter garden. Developer punted, basically said "this is a commercial interest" (iow, "no").
Lot of Dartmouth St. issues, about sidewalks, set backs, benches, etc. But at the beginning the developer talked about narrowing the intersection at Dartmouth and Stuart and increasing the sidewalk width 30 feet (which doesn't make sense) Did anyone else figure this part?
NABB president flat out said it was too tall, as noted. However, she also said that a study must be done on shadow impacts on BB and South End, on EVERY window in the neighborhoods, even if for just 1 hour (something to the effect of "it's important to each owner whether they are impacted).
KZ got everything else I have.
