New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

ROFLman, I'm not sure if your question was sincere, but I assume it was?

In my opinion, this is what is going on:

Representative Marty Walz, D-Back Bay, wants to keep her neighborhood protected from over-development. A laudable goal, in fact, since what makes the Back Bay the "Back Bay" is its beautiful architecture and design.

Unfortunately, she has taken this to the extreme; now she is nothing but an obstructionist, against anything and everything that will change the neighborhood, at all.

The city of Boston has seen many proposals for mid-to-high rises during the past decade. Several of these buildings have been proposed in and around the Back Bay. The Boston Redevelopment Authority is ready to give approval to proposed projects including an office tower on Prudential Plaza and a 47-story condominium tower on an empty lot owned by Simon Properties on the corners of Stuart and Dartmouth streets. It has already approved a ~22-story apartment tower on Exeter Street, just two blocks from Copley Square.

Rep. Walz sees what is happening and is not pleased. In a normal world, she would be helpless to do anything about it, but in Boston, things are different, with the state having meddled in the city's affairs for well over 100 years.

Seeing herself as the champion of all that is good in the world, or at least her neighborhood, she has taken it upon herself to usurp the city's control, and decree by state law what can and cannot be built in major parts of the downtown. That is the goal of her bill, which would outlaw tall buildings on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, Copley Square, and the Fens. (She says she's not "outlawing" anything, simply codifying current city zoning regulations for the area.)

Simply, she doesn't trust the city's leadership to do what is "right" and wants to do it herself.
 
Last edited:
That's a rather charitable assessment.
 
briv said:
That's a rather charitable assessment.
Click to expand...

Charitable, indeed. The development of the so-called "high spine" is well-documented and included significant interference----I mean, "input"----from the surrounding community. The deal was, "no height north of Boylston between Mass Ave/Arlington" in exchange for "height south of Boylston from Mass Ave, north of Huntington toward Park Sq through DT." To come back now and say they've been had and to have elected officials be outright obstructionists to defined development zones is wrong-headed. They all want to follow the letter and spirit of the law when it comes to zoned height but not when applies to the high spine.

Rep Walz and I have had a few spirited conversations (arguments?) about this, but it basically boils down to TEH SHADOWZZZZZZ!!!!1!!!1!!!! her richest contributors may see three weeks a year. In January. From their bathroom window.*


*BY THE WAY!!!!!!! Never mind that the Mandarin Oriental---a project she supported---is one of the most egregious eye rapes of the Back Bay since Johnson squeezed out that turgid turd of a public library wing. Rep Walz is only watching out for her campaign war chest. And her donors are like vampires afraid of a silver cross: they live in fear of TEH SHADOWZZZZZZ!!!!1!!!1!!!!
 
bbfen said:
.... To come back now and say they've been had and to have elected officials be outright obstructionists to defined development zones is wrong-headed. They all want to follow the letter and spirit of the law when it comes to zoned height but not when applies to the high spine.

Rep Walz and I have had a few spirited conversations (arguments?) about this, but it basically boils down to TEH SHADOWZZZZZZ!!!!1!!!1!!!! her richest contributors may see three weeks a year. In January. From their bathroom window.*
Click to expand...

I wonder if she saw the render of the new Mass House districts before she spoke?
 
While this is a bad idea taken to an extreme, the whole "Oh no, shadows!" sentiment is not exactly new nor unique to Boston:

The New York City 1916 Zoning Resolution was a measure adopted primarily to stop massive buildings such as the Equitable Building from preventing light and air from reaching the streets below.
Click to expand...

Of course, they took a more measured approach to the "problem":

It established limits in building massing at certain heights, usually interpreted as a series of setbacks and, while not imposing height limits, restricted towers to a percentage of the lot size.
Click to expand...

But the point is, people have been freaking out about shadows from tall buildings in cities since there have been tall buildings in cities.
 
Last edited:
A well-written report of what went down at the State House.

Representatives from labor unions, colleges and the business community were among those who spoke against the so called "shadow bill" meant to protect sunlight in public parks, saying it would wind up prohibiting development in the city during a legislative hearing Tuesday at the State House.
Click to expand...

http://backbay.patch.com/articles/shadow-bill
 
May I ask that people cast their vote on the poll in the link?
 
UqBBo.png


I have no idea if Patch readers in any way a representational cross section of Bostonians, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this result didn't play out the same way across a larger survey.

I still firmly believe most of us are in a small minority when it comes to this type of stuff.
 
We're up to 22% now. How can we educate people about this stuff? The anti-shadow argument is easy, and resonates with people who haven't thought much about it. Our position is more nuanced, harder to see.
 
HenryAlan said:
We're up to 22% now. How can we educate people about this stuff? The anti-shadow argument is easy, and resonates with people who haven't thought much about it. Our position is more nuanced, harder to see.
Click to expand...

^ This.


Also, we're up to 24% now.
 
This poll means nothing. If it were in the Globe, it would be significant. Besides, you do realize that you vote, clear your cookies, and then vote again, right? That 80% could be 2 distinct people.

I'm pretty sure that someone like the hippie guitar guy did that.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
^ This.


Also, we're up to 24% now.
Click to expand...

All I can say is to paraphase Fidleron the Roof


....sunrise...sunset...winter solstice ... these are the times when shaddows are likely to be a problem -- spreading far and wide -- swiftly move the shaddows on our parks

But when do people use parks -- around noon in the late Autum early winter and a few hours a day around noon in the early to late spring and the time when the sun is high -- i.e. the Summer when shaddows are pleasant breaks from a brutual sun and sweltering temperatures

A bit of highschool physics and trig and these kind of NIMBYs are shown to be idiots
 
Last edited:
FYI, the "nays" have pulled ahead, with 52% of the vote now. I don't know if anything whatsoever can be read into that, but it seems unambiguously better than the previous 20%.
 
This won't pass. The union lobbies are too powerful statewide and are very much aware of this bill.
 
palindrome said:
This won't pass. The union lobbies are too powerful statewide and are very much aware of this bill.
Click to expand...

As we continue to see a consistent dumbing-down of politics, it is no longer safe to assume anything.
 
Don't waste your dreams. When it was an apartment house, you had one (?) owner, who might be tempted with redevelopment $$$. Now that each unit is a condo, how many owners? A hundred? Two hundred?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top