Mayor, City Hall Still In Love With Tall Towers

statler

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
496
...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Banker & Tradesman - November 2, 2009
Mayor, City Hall Still In Love With Tall Towers
BRA Weighing Height Guidelines In Back Bay, Theatre District

By Scott Van Voorhis

Banker & Tradesman Columist

11/02/09

Rendering of The Clarendon in Boston's Back BayDespite the downturn, Mayor Thomas M. Menino and City Hall have not lost their taste for new towers.

Developers looking to build skyward along a key corridor connecting the Back Bay and the Theater District would get a green light under a new set of proposed development guidelines now being weighed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Traditional caps on height would be lifted for tower developers who agree to pay to play, and pitch in millions for everything from ?public art? to affordable housing units, under a set of the proposed rules under consideration at the BRA.

The prospect of being able to build bigger projects could clearly help fuel growth in the years ahead along the fast growing Stuart Street corridor, home to the soon to open Clarendon apartment and condo high-rise. The proposal, all told, includes a sprawling, 12-block area with Stuart Street at its center.

No Blank Check

Long in the shadow of Boylston Street with its monumental architecture, and Newbury Street and its boulevard of high-fashion shops, Stuart is poised to emerge as an address in its own right.

Still, it is not quite a blank check to developers with the most towering ambitions, with protections that clearly ensure the nearby Hancock tower will remain king for years to come.

Nor is the proposal likely to please some neighborhood activists, who had envisioned a more comprehensive plan that would lay out parks and crucial community amenities, such as a grocery store.

Instead, the memo envisions more of the horse-trading between city officials and developers that so often infuriates those on the neighborhood side of the aisle.

?We wanted to make sure it?s designed with open space, a grocery store ? we wanted a comprehensive plan,? fumed one disgruntled activist.

For proof that Stuart Street is hot and bound to get hotter, just look at the two bookends of development on either end of the street: the soon to open Clarendon residential tower on the Back Bay end and the newly opened W Boston where Stuart runs into the Theater District.

City Hall?s proposed new development rules would cover a broad, 40-acre swath of prime real estate around the Stuart corridor, out to Dartmouth Street to the west and Arlington to the east. Along with the Clarendon, it includes such new projects as the Bryant condo complex as well as the site of the ill-fated Columbus Center proposal.

The city proposal envisions two sets of heights, one for less ambitious developers not ready for serious deal making and the other for builders who want some height and are ready to pay for it.

The first set of rules, for more standard developments, calls for a ?base? height of no more than 150 feet.

Now it?s not quite exactly for slackers.

New developments, even if they fall short of ?tower? status, must still provide for a lively streetscape, with retail stores and the like, especially along such key streets as Columbus Avenue, Dartmouth, Clarendon, Berkeley and Arlington streets. Developers are also required to build in space for small shops and stores as well, according to rules detailed in a ?draft? proposal.

400-Foot Club

But developers with skyward ambitions need not despair. Those ready to go the extra mile, so to speak, could see their projects soar as high as 400 feet into the Hub skyline, but they will first have to meet a series ? and by the sound of them costly ? standards.

The first two standards are non-negotiable. Developers will have to ?incorporate advanced sustainability methods? at Leed Gold level or net zero energy consumption.

If the site includes an older building, forget tearing it down. Instead, there?s a requirement for preservation that meets ?National Register criteria ? in a manner that respects the architectural character of the original building.?

Now for the really good stuff.

After meeting the first two requirements, developers are given the choice of picking one of three items ?from the following menu of public benefits.?

One way to buy some extra height is to pay for some affordable units in the Stuart Street area. That would mean, for a residential project, either designating as many as 15 percent of units as affordable, or paying to build them elsewhere.

If housing is not your thing, you can consider contributing to a ?streetscape/pedestrian and bicycle fund.? From what I could make of this, it looks like paying for various streetscape improvements.

Or if that doesn?t tickle your fancy, how about a little public art? Developers can roll out some ?publicly accessible art? of their own, or donate to the Fund for Boston Neighborhoods.

Caution: Neither of these two latter options comes cheap, with a price-tag of a half percent of building costs. While .5 percent of a project sounds small, if you are building a $500 million tower, that amounts to a cool $2.5 million.

Anyway, if you are going to bring your own art, it has to be ?invoiced or appraised? to the full amount. No beauty in the eye of the beholder here.

BRA Just Being Specific

For their part, the BRA officials who helped draft the proposed new rules offered an interesting defense.

Developers, under the city approval process, are routinely required to pony up for ?community benefits.?

This just spells out the likely demands and options for both developers and the community to see, Prataap Pratose, deputy director of urban design at the BRA, explained to me.

Everything, I was told, is still in ?draft? form ? months away from any final proposal.

Still, for some neighborhood activists with starry eyed visions of planning an urban oasis along Stuart Street, I am sure it is bound to be a little disillusioning.

?It does not have anything to do with planning at all,? said one activist. ?Anybody can have a 400-foot tower.?
Click to expand...

Sorry Van/Briv, you can move this to the appropriate thread when you are done laughing. :lol:
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

Is this real? April Fools' Day isn't for awhile...
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

I was with them until they got to the "art" part since I can just see developers shelling out for the most boring corporate art imaginable just to get height. Take that requirement out and set it aside for infrastructure or affordable housing and this seems like a pretty decent proposal.


If the site includes an older building...
Click to expand...

I guess nothing will ever get torn down ever again.

----

I might change the name but since this doesn't pertain to anything in particular I guess it will stay here (maybe Back Bay Developments?)
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

I think the biggest question here is what this is going to do to existing proposals. Could we see the SCL proposal getting even more offensive to everyone? Maybe Columbus Center will turn into a 1,000 footer, thanks to some obscure provision in the plan allowing an extra 400 feet on top of the original height, and literally send Ned into orbit? Neo-Kowloon City in Chinatown? Not to mention all the possibilities for corruption, given that this whole thing is rather cheery about bribery....otherwise known as 'linkage".
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

Uh guys, the article says as high as 400ft. In other words, there are no changes, we still get 400ft stumps....
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

"The city proposal envisions two sets of heights, one for less ambitious developers not ready for serious deal making and the other for builders who want some height and are ready to pay for it."

This won't lead to corruption at all!
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

The article should've been named "Back Bay Welcomes Taller Developments" or something similar.. . Don't know why he had to stick Menino in there. Seeing his name with new developments, especially taller developments, makes me angry. They don't go together. Is this article some sort of political stunt .. or maybe something to attract developers? Raise awareness on planning intent around the community? Blah.
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

Riverworks said:
The article should've been named "Back Bay Welcomes Taller Developments" or something similar.. . Don't know why he had to stick Menino in there. Seeing his name with new developments, especially taller developments, makes me angry. They don't go together. Is this article some sort of political stunt .. or maybe something to attract developers? Raise awareness on planning intent around the community? Blah.
Click to expand...

Ah, but grasshopper, they DO go together. Unless it has a pretty crown, all lit up, the Mayor says NO.

Now, if there's a new mayor, things will get interesting.
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

The BRA has been under attack by the Mayor's competition. This is probably some election BS to make the BRA look like it's becoming more workable.
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

I built this with some friends today, but the height was too much and the FAA made me take the legos down.

103368_tallest_lego_tower_210_1_1.jpg
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

?We wanted to make sure it?s designed with open space, a grocery store ? we wanted a comprehensive plan,? fumed one disgruntled activist.
Click to expand...

Please be Ned, please be Ned, please be Ned.......
 
Re: Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

I'm pretty sure this is the city government equivalent of a public mafia shakedown. They're just letting y'all know they're corrupt and these are the rules. At least now they're being honest.

And if I hear one more neighborhood activist who lives 2 blocks from the Common clamoring for more parkland... I swear, I live farther from a park than these people, and I don't feel the least bit robbed.

A grocery store, though, that would be nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top