Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

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

whighlander said:
Might have something to do with a lack of much work for the Building Trades especially the iron workers
Click to expand...

Or the work of a deep pockets developer looking to make money off of a desirable site wile correcting another "open space" disaster of the Death Race 2000 / Escape from New York era of urban planning. In the words of Glenn Ordway "What's Wrong With That?"
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Marty and Byron, true to form, never let the facts get in the way of their narrative:

The Boston Globe said:
A transportation executive said the lease, by itself, does not grant the right to build, because the project still needs approvals from state environmental regulators and the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

“The lease amendments we made do not interfere in any way with the review process that’s in place,’’ said Peter O’Connor, head of real estate for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. “All we are saying in the lease is that if you get permits from the city and [environmental regulators] we will not object, as landlord, if you build it on this land.’’
Click to expand...
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

atlantaden said:
Neimanmarcuswatch and Stevil (from the Boston Globe comments) seem to be the same person since both use the exact same arguments against building this building! Surprisingly, he's raked over the coals by other posters on the Globe. He also posts against building the Congress St. garage project using the same arguments....overbuild condo's in the city affect property values, property taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll have to read Neimanmarcuswatch more carefully, but I'd be surprised if they are the same person. Stevil is active on Universal Hub, and I don't think he'd bother with a new name for Archboston, especially since he uses the Stevil ID in multiple locationso.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

What drives me nuts is when these "protectors of the city" such as Neimanmarcuswatch and Stevil use somewhat legitimate reasoning to mask their real reasoning. Stevil, for example, criticizes the tower as being too big for the area, out of scale, needs the height reduced to transition better even though its between two 700 footers, shadows and congestion. All of these excuses I have already disproved as manageable. Only then does Stevil pull out the small market demand and congestion caused by construction crew, and the possible use of public funding to strengthen the deck. The last three are legitimate concerns but they only serve as a method to hide their disdain to density and Not In My Backyard intentions. I hate having to listen to insincere bullshit they pull out.

Also, I didn't get a chance to reply to Stevil's last reply so I'll do it here. First of all, the Mandarin and the W Hotel were built within congested streets and the effect were minimal. There were no gridlock whatsoever. I doubt this project is any different.

Second of all, Stevil claims that the market is thin, and that there's not enough millionaires in Massachusetts to fill the tower. He forgets to realize that people outside the state wants to move into Boston, not just people within Massachusetts.

Also, I do not know if public funding will be used but I do believe that Simon Property, #1 in The U.S. real estate company, will have no problem financing this project.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Stevil has a few pet peeves that he hammers away at, which in my mind get in the way of his more legitimate critique of Boston development, which is that it is too narrowly focused on the downtown luxury segment of the overall market. I agree with him on this, but I don't believe it's due to a grand conspiracy, and even if I did, I would attack that angle, rather than the aesthetic issues or disruptive nature of construction.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Honestly, strickly in regards to skyline aspects of cities (which is by no means everything a city is) Boston has to build this. Make another noticable building. Progress from just the Hancock and Pru, it's been 40 years, time to add to it. Grow already.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

hmmm I see a lot of boo-hoo'ing that article, but the only thing I didn't really like was calling this a "massive" project. What makes it so attractive is the lack of mass. It would be realy the only slender high rise in the city, and would hopefully start a trend. You can call it tall, but it is not massive, that infers volume. (It's also barely tall.)
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Boston's big problem a lot of the time and benefit occasionally is this:

1) A project is proposed
2) a rather predictable formal approval process begins (depending on whether filled land is involved, etc.)
3) the general public gets to weigh-in on the project -- the developer then responds
4) SK and other NIMBYs spew forth -- lots of noise and perhaps some stumping off
5) there is approval
6) the CLF or some other bunch of anti-growth sue 9especially if Chap 91 or the Pilke is involved)
7) the economy tanks
8) Project is: a) cancelled or b) substantially scaled-back and put on hold
9) economy recovers
10) Project is resurrected in a scaled-back further form

With Copley, the Pru, and Govt Center Garage we made it through the first 8 steps -- are we at 9 yet?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

There's an update on this project in the Aug 12 issue of the Boston Courant. The article says The Boston Zoning Commission has made the development into a PDA, which "suspends the developer from existing height and square footage restrictions". I'm assuming this is a good thing and will speed up the approval process? There were a lot of concerned neighbor quotes, like this one from a resident of Tent City:

"Copley Place and Tent City were created as a result of a thoroughly researched land use plan, which was vetted extensively in the community, and (the zoning) should not be altered without similar process and input."
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Towers would be completely achievable in the context of a Master Plan and the filing of a zoning amendment to update a district's zoning. The "PDA" was developed as a means of streamlining approvals of a rezoning of a significant area, not a single project.

But since we really don't have a functioning planning department like most major cities, PDAs (Planned Development Area) are filed and approved on a project-by-project basis -- a misapplication of the original intention in determining the zoning of a significant area.

Other cities call this "spot zoning," and results are mixed, as are opinions. The selective application of spot zoning is great for dispensing favors in a highly politicized development environment (e.g. Boston) but it reduces stability and certainty which are why planning and zoning make better sense in ensuring that land across a broad swath is upgraded to meet its highest potential.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^^ The problem with what you're saying is that I could see the entirety of Boston being zoned for 400' and under... Too many people around here seem to think that the towers built in the 60's and 70's should remain the apex of Boston's skyline, forever.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

That is a problem with leadership, not planning and zoning.

When successful, planning and zoning improves the value of land for a broad swath of property owners and users. Ideally, that is the primary goal of upgrading land uses through rezoning.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If I could copy and paste the whole article, I would. The zoning commission did designate a larger area for the PDA, not this specific development. The PDA includes the Copley Place tower site and, or to, the Christian Science Center property. Maybe it's for that whole corridor, the article didn't give more details.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If so, that would be a positive.

I am aware of a PDA for the Christian Science Center properties, maybe it's part of that one.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Sicilian said:
The "PDA" was developed as a means of streamlining approvals of a rezoning of a significant area, not a single project. . . . Other cities call this "spot zoning," and results are mixed, as are opinions.
Click to expand...

PDAs were established to provide overlay zoning for projects on a site of one acre or more and were, in fact, developed to provide the rezoning necessary for individual projects. The PDA process was created initially and first used for the John Hancock Tower. Since then most large development projects in Boston have used the PDA process for zoning approvals. Initially any site of over one acre could utilize the PDA process. Now PDAs are only allowed in certain designated areas.

As for spot zoning, the issue has been litigated in Massachusetts and the courts have determined that PDAs are not spot zoning. The PDA for the New England Life project (now 500 Boylston and 222 Berkeley) was challenged by a group called "Citizens for a Better New England Life", and the PDA was sustained. (Even though the developers won the case, they agreed to redesign phase 2 (222 Berkeley) which originally was going to replicate the first phase (500 Boylston). As a result of that case, PDAs are viewed as a very safe way to obtain zoning relief. As opposed to variances, most of which typically do not satisfy very onerous standards for approval even when they are approved, it is extremely difficult to challenge the validity of an approved PDA.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Admittedly I am not an expert on the subject, just observing the use of PDA's over the past decade. And I appreciate your technical explanation.

I am aware of a number of fairly large-scale PDA's, which seemed to involve substantial master planning. Fan Pier, Pier IV, Seaport Square, Channel Center were approved as PDAs, each for one respective property owner. The Fort Point 100 Acre Plan was a PDA filed by the city for 100 acres owned by multiple property owners.

I am also aware of the streamlining of approvals by designating a single project as a PDA, completely absent the same level of master planning to consider context. Russia Wharf comes to mind. And here's a notable example:

Kensington had to battle many issues before it was approved. The first was getting the City to define the project as a Planned Development Area (PDA) so it can exceed the zoning codes. However one of the qualifications for a PDA designation was that the area needed to be one-acre or more and Kensington didn’t have the necessary land acreage. The developers and the City did some creative zoning by including the adjacent China Trade Center to fulfill the one-acre requirement.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what a court says, I think it's reasonable to call this application of a PDA (and countless others) as spot zoning. The court probably considers a number of factors including the standing of the parties suing, the position of the City of Boston, etc.

I might as well mention the amendment process to a PDA which allows for significant modification to the original approved land use. I suspect the recent change on Pier IV is an example of an amended PDA. The land use gets changed with virtually no public process. Whether or not people think that's fine is one thing... but it's not the same thing as rezoning to suit a master plan.

Personally, I don't have a problem with limited application of such changes in land use. But I think it's been routinely abused and used to circumvent even a rational level of process to ensure a top notch outcome.
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Regardless of the merits of the PDA approach, it does provide an alternative to reviewing large projects and plenty of opportunity for public review and comment. Upon application for PDA approval, the public is afforded at least 45 days to comment followed by a public hearing before the BRA. If approved, the PDA must then be approved by the Boston Zoning Commission after a second public hearing. Amendments to a PDA cannot be achieved with "virtually no public process." Any amendment to a PDA, no matter how minor, must follow this same process - application, public comment period of at least 45 days, public hearing at BRA, public hearing at BZC.

On top of this, virtually all PDAs require Large Project Review under Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code prior to approval. This process involves substantial analysis of all aspects of a proposed project requiring a developer to prepare a Project Notification Form and then one or more Project Impact Reports, which are made available to the public for review and comment.

As to Spot Zoning, the courts' decisions are based upon legal standards established over many years. Regardless of whether it feels like "spot zoning," there is actually more oversight, review and process through approval of a project through the PDA process than approval through zoning variances which, together with Large Project Review for large projects, requires a single public hearing before the Board of Appeal.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

These are the technical requirements cited by the BRA whenever they are asked about public process. And I do not suggest they break the law in fulfilling requirements.

Without going into lengthy exposition, these technicalities have little bearing on how the process plays out in Boston districts that lack a public watchdog or cohesive constituency interested in the project. I'm NOT talking about the type of Back Bay NIMBYism that makes headlines -- I'm talking about extraordinary sources of input and critique of projects that are available but are completely shut down.

And it is a mistake to think the details are public. I've seen private MOAs and MOUs for large projects that no one knew about for years after they were signed by the City and the property owner. Even some basics, like seeing the architecture of One Marina Park Drive or the Vertex buildings in advance of a public comment period would seem like no brainers -- but they aren't no brainers.

I don't want to derail this thread about Copley Place. If another thread starts up about public process (or the successful input of any talented 3rd parties in large projects via public process) I'd love to read that and possibly participate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

In general when courts look for spot zoning they look for a rezoned parcel that does not fit the essential character of the previous zoning. PDA's tend to address the issue by requiring a minimum size and by generally addressing physical restrictions in the zoning as opposed to use restrictions (which are more frequently found to be against the original zoning scheme)

None of this is to say that PDA's are necessarily a good thing or that they don't effectuate "spot zoning". They are good to help alleviate the need for variances or constant rewriting of the zoning code, but a well thought out comprehensive zoning scheme would be much better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top