New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

I'd like to find out how I can force my neighbor to tear down his house so that I am free from shadows. It seems only fair.
 
I demand a 40 foot buffer between buildings and their property line. I'm tired of buildings casting shadows on other buildings. Let there be light!
 
^I'd go a step further and say that however tall a building is, that's how far from the property line it should be. A thousand foot building? Well it needs a square mile of property to be build in the center of.
 
That's a rather poor understanding of shadows, porter. Depending on time of day, a shadow can cast much further than the length of the object's height. Best make the rule 5 times building height, just to be sure.
 
This isn't funny. If the anti-shadow laws don't go through, we'll all get Rickets from lack of sunlight. Is that what you want? Rickets?
 
With Copley Place back in the picture, this thread/petition is the MOST IMPORTANT issue right now!
 
489 signatures are still required. I urge all of you to sign Kentie's petition and give a valid reason.
 
Just wondering, is there anyone else I should include besides the 6 people I listed for email?
 
It was all Boston legislators, correct? Might be worth adding the Mayor and some city counselors.
 
Signed the petition with the following comment...kind of long haha:

Preventing developments that cast any shadows on certain parks is both preposterous and irresponsible. I'm 100% for responsible development in the city of Boston, but I feel this is going overboard.

Boston is home to one of the most impressive professional talent pools in the nation and possibly the world...however our prices are cost-prohibitive to many companies. Boston is one of the most expensive cities in the country, with Class A office space demanding the highest rents in the nation outside of Manhattan (see Grubb-Ellis.com for statistics). Major development in areas such as the Financial District, South Boston Waterfront, Back Bay, etc will help keep prices down and allow our city to grow. Without this, I fear rent prices could become even higher, pushing more companies from our city, to the suburbs or even further (Fidelity is already in the middle of a mass exodus to the Sunbelt).

While I believe the creators of this bill are interested in keeping our city as beautiful as possible, their cause is short-sighted. The location of the sun is not fixed. A tower built near Copley Square may cast a shadow at certain times of the day, but will not result in perpetual darkness for one of the finest public spaces. The John Hancock Tower has been proving this since 1976.

Instead of focusing on trying to shrink or block every major project in the city, why don't we focus on improving the quality of these projects? Instead of a getting a beautiful new neighborhood on the South Boston Waterfront, so far we've been served a heaping helping of Dallas-by-the-Sea. By preventing potentially great projects, we're forcing the development of a suburban office park within our city, blocks away from downtown. Doesn't this seem considerably more detrimental to the image of our city than a shadow on a park? We lost beautiful neighborhoods like the West End with Urban Renewal, and the South Boston Waterfront is already turning into "Urban Renewal v2.0". If we should be preventing any developments, it should be those.

I'll try to pass the link along to as many friends as I can.
 
HenryAlan said:
It was all Boston legislators, correct? Might be worth adding the Mayor and some city counselors.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the website doesn't seem to include e-mails of the mayor and councilor. However, if I do plan to send them the petition letter asking them to sign it once I discover their email address. It will be pretty interesting to see how they respond.

And to those that support this petition, if you have time to spare, see if you could share it the link on facebook or any other social websites.

I've been hoping that Boston.com writes an article about this bill so I can post the link in the comment section.

Update: I just e-mailed Paul McMorrow, a columnist from CommonWealth Magazine, who wrote a globe article on this bill back in April.

Update: Apparently Marty Walz clarified the bill with this letter to the author:

IN HIS April 1 op-ed ?Casting a shadow on Back Bay?s future,?? Paul McMorrow is wrong in his description of a bill we filed, An Act Protecting Sunlight in Certain Public Parks. Rather than preventing any new shadows on certain parks in Boston and Cambridge, as McMorrow asserts, the bill seeks to build on the success of existing laws protecting the Boston Common and Public Garden. These laws allow a substantial loss of sunlight when that loss is caused by new buildings built in compliance with the zoning code. Our bill extends that standard to other open spaces and only then prohibits shadows from buildings taller than permitted by zoning.

The bill?s goal is to better balance the city?s need for economic development with the need to protect our enjoyment of urban parks. The thriving communities around the Common and Public Garden prove that we need not sacrifice our public spaces when we strengthen our economy.

Martha M. Walz
State representative
8th Suffolk District

Byron Rushing
State representative
9th Suffolk District
Boston
Click to expand...

While this may be Martha's and Byron's intent, we all know activists will twist the meaning and definitions laid out by this bill to stop developments.
 
Last edited:
Government Center and Charles River Park are perfect examples of anti-shadow development. Ugly monolithic slabs standing alone in barren superblocks.

No possibility of shadows falling onto anything there!
 
Why is this meeting being held at the State House instead of Bridgewater State Hospital?
 
From common-phobias.com:
What is Sciophobia?

Sciophobia is the fear of shadows. The origin of the word scio is Greek (meaning shadow) and phobia is Greek (meaning fear). Sciophobia is considered to be a specific phobia. Sciophobia is also known as Sciaphobia.

What are the causes?

It is generally accepted that phobias arise from a combination of external events (i.e. traumatic events) and internal predispositions (i.e. heredity or genetics). Many specific phobias can be traced back to a specific triggering event, usually a traumatic experience at an early age. Social phobias and agoraphobia have more complex causes that are not entirely known at this time. It is believed that heredity, genetics, and brain chemistry combine with life-experiences to play a major role in the development of phobias. (Wikipedia - phobia).

What are the symptoms?

As with any phobia, the symptoms vary by person depending on their level of fear. The symptoms typically include extreme anxiety, dread and anything associated with panic such as shortness of breath, rapid breathing, irregular heartbeat, sweating, excessive sweating, nausea, dry mouth, nausea, inability to articulate words or sentences, dry mouth and shaking. .

Can I take medicine?

Medicine can be prescribed, but please note that these medications can have side effects and/or withdrawal systems that can be severe. It is also importation to note that medicines do not cure phobias, at best they only temporarily suppress the systems. However, there are treatments for phobias, which include counseling, hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, and Neuro-Linguistic programming.
Click to expand...
 
I had a conversation with State Representative Aaron Michlewitz earlier this afternoon and I told him I was going to attend the public hearing on Tuesday. He tried to convince me that it had already been held, last Tuesday, which I can only conclude was his way of trying to reduce the number of opponents showing up at the State House!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top