New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
Well, today there's no market for anything in the Seaport. If we had the sort of zoning laws that most European capitals have, there'd still be a market, but the existing crop of developers might not be as interested. It'd probably be diverse, smaller investors ... maybe a bit like the tenement and apartment owners in New York 100 years ago, or in triple-decker neighborhoods in Somerville, Cambridge and most of Boston today.
Many German cities have rebuilt (a la Nuremberg) under pre-war zoning codes and are dense, affluent and with thriving commercial and residential markets (that didn't get as giddy, or as deflated, as ours). Some multinationals do take space in these buildings (like some of the investment banks on Unter den Linden in Berlin), while others prefer big floorplates (for which you have developments like the widely panned Potsdamer Platz). Probably the human-scale zoning is mostly for residential and retail use -- but Boston isn't just one big JPMorgan office and needs residential and retail uses as well.
Many German cities have rebuilt (a la Nuremberg) under pre-war zoning codes and are dense, affluent and with thriving commercial and residential markets (that didn't get as giddy, or as deflated, as ours). Some multinationals do take space in these buildings (like some of the investment banks on Unter den Linden in Berlin), while others prefer big floorplates (for which you have developments like the widely panned Potsdamer Platz). Probably the human-scale zoning is mostly for residential and retail use -- but Boston isn't just one big JPMorgan office and needs residential and retail uses as well.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 447
My guess is that the BRA views the Seaport as a place for businesses that want big floorplates. (As you point out, there aren't too many of those nowadays.)
I was walking around the Devonshire, Spring Lane, upper State neighborhood today remembering that Fidelity wanted to wipe out a lot of that so it could have a big vanity skyscraper with big profitable floor plates. It was one of the few times I was glad of the economic collapse. Go east, old Ned Johnson.
(The Commonwealth Books that was on Boylston relocated to Spring Lane. Oddly, it is only 2 blocks from the Commonwealth Books under Old South Church.)
I was walking around the Devonshire, Spring Lane, upper State neighborhood today remembering that Fidelity wanted to wipe out a lot of that so it could have a big vanity skyscraper with big profitable floor plates. It was one of the few times I was glad of the economic collapse. Go east, old Ned Johnson.
(The Commonwealth Books that was on Boylston relocated to Spring Lane. Oddly, it is only 2 blocks from the Commonwealth Books under Old South Church.)
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
This is all well and good, but Boston would basically have to wait for the local/national real estate development industry to reinvent itself to suit the city's sudden needs, if that ever happens. They don't think/behave like the Somerville tenement developers of 100 years ago.
It's worth noting that German developers don't really, either. Hamburg's Hafenstadt is very, very similar to the Seaport (but with better architecture). Developers seem to think and act differently when forced to respect a particular context. Give them a tabula rasa and they'll build to the dictates of the market of today, rather than the market that dictated the built form of old Nuremburg - the 1550s.
PlanBoston
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 12
Exactly - developers will take the path of least resistance. It's much easier to play by the rules than to try and change them; therefore it's easier for banks and investors to predict returns.
The development business responded to the rules in the Seaport, only the big developers can play. They find the easiest way to turn the best profit for their investors, while having no long term connection to the neighborhood. Smaller parcels and project budgets allow smaller owners with various expectations on returns to get creative. The buildings are then varied, value engineered to different degrees, and sized to a more comfortable human perspective.
The development business is becoming a more of an investment vehicle and less of an exercise in creating healthy urban places. The result is standardized buildings, status-quo planning, and generic uninspired projects. As long as it's easier to finance and get approval for large office projects and mega-developments, developers won't push for a human-scaled residential / retail neighborhood mix.
They are operating in an auto-centric context that hasn't changed much since the 1950's. From highway funding to zoning to the modern retail landscape, developers are encouraged to build for cars over people.
Why not think in a more pedestrian and transit friendly context? Change the rules to encourage (subsidize) more environmentally healthy building patterns.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Because no one outside these boards advocates for that.
I'm still not sure how much call there is for these ideals outside this board. We are a small group, and even we disagree more than agree. Are we just a small fringe element? Or is there really a critical mass of urbanists out there just waiting for someone to make the first step?
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 447
PB,
Of course the developers played by the rules in the Seaport. They were written for them so that they could have a maximum profit zone unique to the city. Why wouldn't they play?
The only true restriction there is height, and that was imposed by the FAA to protect the interests of the airlines and associated industries. The fact that the Seaport isn't booming shows only how dead ass the local economy is. Does anyone seriously suggest that little lots would be more profitable of that it would be built out by now?
I disagree with your take on the ease of "playing by the rules." It is seldom easier to play by the rules if those rules are not profitable. If they aren't, and can't easily be changed, you pick up your ball and go play where the rules suit you. By the way, if the rules can be easily changed, they weren't that significant to begin with.
Self interest is the only reliable human motive. Planning without reference to it is futile. The most effective regulation connotes nothing more than the embodiment of one party's economically inferior interest being subordinated to another party's superior economic interest. All the rest is just a question of standing. Example? See the height restrictions in the Seaport.
The least effective regulation is one born in a climate where the interests of the parties are nearly equal and in balance. Less profit. Litigation. Who knows, maybe smaller lots. Definitely less profit and more risk, which means less chance of anything being built. Makes regulation redundant if there is nothing building to regulate, that is, unless your true purpose is to have nothing built. But then, wouldn't property values flop, capital dry up, jobs flee, and then what have you got? Boston of 1955. And then the balance changes.
You think: "If I write a rule it will happen." Nope. You planners might get to dabble at the margins of the big stuff a little, or in smaller cases where competing forces are in balance. The big stuff? Forggeddaboutit. Proof? Look at the skyline.
Toby
Of course the developers played by the rules in the Seaport. They were written for them so that they could have a maximum profit zone unique to the city. Why wouldn't they play?
The only true restriction there is height, and that was imposed by the FAA to protect the interests of the airlines and associated industries. The fact that the Seaport isn't booming shows only how dead ass the local economy is. Does anyone seriously suggest that little lots would be more profitable of that it would be built out by now?
I disagree with your take on the ease of "playing by the rules." It is seldom easier to play by the rules if those rules are not profitable. If they aren't, and can't easily be changed, you pick up your ball and go play where the rules suit you. By the way, if the rules can be easily changed, they weren't that significant to begin with.
Self interest is the only reliable human motive. Planning without reference to it is futile. The most effective regulation connotes nothing more than the embodiment of one party's economically inferior interest being subordinated to another party's superior economic interest. All the rest is just a question of standing. Example? See the height restrictions in the Seaport.
The least effective regulation is one born in a climate where the interests of the parties are nearly equal and in balance. Less profit. Litigation. Who knows, maybe smaller lots. Definitely less profit and more risk, which means less chance of anything being built. Makes regulation redundant if there is nothing building to regulate, that is, unless your true purpose is to have nothing built. But then, wouldn't property values flop, capital dry up, jobs flee, and then what have you got? Boston of 1955. And then the balance changes.
You think: "If I write a rule it will happen." Nope. You planners might get to dabble at the margins of the big stuff a little, or in smaller cases where competing forces are in balance. The big stuff? Forggeddaboutit. Proof? Look at the skyline.
Toby
Last edited:
^ vERY CYNICAL. pROBABLY MORE THAN IS JUSTIFIED BY REALITY. yOU SOUND LIKE jEFFERSON, WHO WAS ACTUALLY A VERY CYNICAL DUDE.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 447
Looks like Bostonbred is unmasked at last!
PlanBoston
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 12
Among people on these boards, those who do pay attention to the urban environment, there seems to be agreement that the current development model is broken and some consensus on how to define better development patterns.
The problem is the rules in the Seaport were undefined. It was a game with the BRA to get permission and incentives for the most profitable development, then flip to extract profit without building anything. The incentive was to hold out and renegotiate, not to build.
Smaller lots with clearly defined guidelines for height, massing, etc. would reduce speculation - developers would know just what they could build before buying the land. They would also have an interest in the success of the overall district, beyond their property lines. A different set of rules could still be profitable and encourage buildout in a timely manner.
There are plenty of people who will pay a premium for quality. A rich urban texture has economic value, as evidenced by the gentrification of many historic districts in this country. Such texture is rarely built today because of the generic, box-store, one-size-fits-all approach to development; however a market for it does exist.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
I
InTheHood
Guest
They are baaaaack! Here's an email message I recently received as a member of the "Friends of the Public Garden." I'm retracting the contact details.
The Friends of the Public Garden has joined the coalition gathering signatures to support the Petition to Support H. 1169, An Act Protecting Sunlight in Certain Public Parks, sponsored by Reps. Martha Walz and Byron Rushing. (Text available at www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01169.)
This bill seeks to expand and clarify the current laws that protect the sunlight on the beloved Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common by limiting new shadows.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit any new construction or building remodeling from blocking sunlight and casting new shadows on six additional public parks.
The goal of the bill is to allow reasonably-scaled development near the parks while protecting sufficient sunlight for the health of the park environment and the enjoyment of its users.
The five Boston parks and one Cambridge park that will be protected by the bill are:
* The Back Bay Fens
* Christ! opher Columbus Park
* The Commonwealth Avenue Mall
* Copley Square Park
* The Esplanade
* Magazine Beach Park
You can sign the petition immediately on https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sunlight2. The survey will be available until May 23.
We hope you will help on this important city issue. Together we can ensure that sunlight continues to shine on our neighborhood parks.
Please do not hesitate to email or call our board member xxx with any questions: xxxxx.
The Friends of the Public Garden has joined the coalition gathering signatures to support the Petition to Support H. 1169, An Act Protecting Sunlight in Certain Public Parks, sponsored by Reps. Martha Walz and Byron Rushing. (Text available at www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01169.)
This bill seeks to expand and clarify the current laws that protect the sunlight on the beloved Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common by limiting new shadows.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit any new construction or building remodeling from blocking sunlight and casting new shadows on six additional public parks.
The goal of the bill is to allow reasonably-scaled development near the parks while protecting sufficient sunlight for the health of the park environment and the enjoyment of its users.
The five Boston parks and one Cambridge park that will be protected by the bill are:
* The Back Bay Fens
* Christ! opher Columbus Park
* The Commonwealth Avenue Mall
* Copley Square Park
* The Esplanade
* Magazine Beach Park
You can sign the petition immediately on https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sunlight2. The survey will be available until May 23.
We hope you will help on this important city issue. Together we can ensure that sunlight continues to shine on our neighborhood parks.
Please do not hesitate to email or call our board member xxx with any questions: xxxxx.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 336
Is there a way to virtually urinate on the petition?
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
If they truly removed the Greenway, that's quite a change. Also, improvement.
Unfortunately, it also means Ms. Walz is serious about no. construction. ever. on the parcels at Mass Ave and Boylston.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69