Don't let endless reviews thwart dorm at Huntington Y
April 4, 2011
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Text size ? + IF A private developer and Northeastern University are blocked in their effort to put up a proposed dormitory behind the Huntington Avenue YMCA, it would only validate Boston?s reputation as a city where it?s next to impossible to get anything built. The Massachusetts Historical Commission?s recent assertion that a proposed 17-story dorm would overwhelm its surroundings shouldn?t keep the project from going forward.
Tweet Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis The dorm is needed: Getting students out of off-campus apartments, particularly in the Fenway and Mission Hill, and into student housing closely supervised by universities is a high priority both for neighborhood groups and the Menino administration. But the project makes sense for a variety of other reasons. The dorm?s closest neighbors are institutions rather than private residences. It would stand on the site of a gymnasium wing that the Y is eager to sell so it can raise money to upgrade its remaining facilities.
Yet the historical commission ? one of several agencies with some authority over the project ? dealt a setback last month when it concluded that the project would have an ?adverse effect?? on its surroundings. According to a letter from state historic preservation officer Brona Simon, ?the size and scale of the new construction overwhelms the historic YMCA building and thus alters the setting of this historic property as viewed from multiple vantage points.?? The claim isn?t persuasive. Because the project won?t front on Huntington Avenue, it wouldn?t be an intrusion upon a series of historic facades. The surrounding blocks already contain significant variation in heights; a tower of similar height stands a block and a half away, on the corner of Huntington and Massachusetts avenues.
The developer should certainly comply with the commission?s request for more information. But while Simon?s letter hints at potential objections that are to some degree reasonable ? a tall building might cast excessive shadows over historical buildings; there might be other options for the YMCA building in question; Northeastern might have considered more low-rise alternatives ? these issues are deeply subjective. And the more boundless the questions, the more opponents of any motivation have a veto over even a reasonable project.
A city that?s almost four centuries old must be protective of its historical appearance, and there?s a long and honorable tradition of public participation in planning and zoning decisions in Massachusetts. Indeed, a proposal by the same private developer for a much taller dorm unaffiliated with any university foundered in part because of opposition from Northeastern.
But stiffest opposition to the revised project comes not from the immediate neighborhood of the proposed building, but from members of the YMCA who disapprove of the organization?s plans to eliminate some existing exercise facilities ? and have pressed their case with the historical commission and other agencies. These members? disappointment is understandable. Yet the duly appointed officers of the nonprofit organization have opted to put together a reasonable real-estate transaction with other private entities. The regulatory review process is the wrong forum for an intramural dispute within the YMCA.
The proposed dorm serves a useful purpose, and promises to be an attractive addition to its neighborhood. It should be authorized.
