New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

Wait...is this bill really saying we need to tear down all the skyscrapers that cast shadows on parks?

I remember some idiots in London proposed something similar. The fact that this idea is even being considered by people is insane.
 
No zoning law can require tearing down an existing building. Zoning regulates future development and use only.
 
To steer Ron back to topic:

The above cited early legislation in which the Legislature intervened in zoning has to be put in historical context. The Legislature was controlled by the so-called "Yankees" (a very broad brush term, but we'll leave there for now). Boston had come under the control of the Irish, whom the legislators regarded with a mixture of contempt, racism, envy and alarm.

The spirit of legislative intervention in those days was fueled by the paternalistic belief that "it is good for them, whether they like it or not, the ignorant rascals".

No doubt, the geniuses behind this proposal have the same paternalistic attitude toward the "unenlightened". What's missing this time is the powerful motive of racism (individual or collective) that made the earlier efforts possible.

In short, the Legislature has the power to do it, but probably not the stones.

P.S. As an example, G.L. c. 40A, s. 6 grandfathers lawfully commenced uses and buildings that were in existence at the time a zoning change goes into effect. Anything that requires a teardown is a taking that will require the owner(s) to be compensated. Those of you with dreams of demolishing ToC: forgeddaboudit.

P.P.S. To be precise, Boston has its own zoning special act. However, the grandfather protection in 40A:6 is analagous to that in Boston's act.
 
Last edited:
Quick question. If you put this on a citywide ballot measure (I know it doesn't exist) do you think it would pass?

I think it it would by a large majority. I think this board is an echo chamber. We are a very small minority on issues like this.
 
^^^^ No. This is still a union town. It would be squashed like a bug.
 
I'd more consider this group representative of the overall silent majority who typically make up a large portion of the overall populace.

The people who get anything done on the other hand are the overly loud minority.

I believe (and may be way off, but it's my opinion) that most people in this city if asked about something like this would have no strong feelings either way, and they could probably see the views of both sides, if they cared enough to even think about it.

If they were brought up to speed on the pros and cons of both sides, and were then asked to make an educated decision... I think they'd be against this nonsense (especially in a stagnant market that needs to create new jobs and cash flow).

The problem is that the vocal minority is the voice that the regular person hears and responds to. The additional problem is that the silent majority does not speak up, or even feel strongly enough about something to make a noise. Groups like this are the only voice of the silent majority, and only we can hear our wails.
 
tobyjug said:
To steer Ron back to topic:

In short, the Legislature has the power to do it, but probably not the stones.

P.S. G.L. c. 40, s. 6 grandfathers lawfully commenced uses and buildings that were in existence at the time a zoning change goes into effect. Anything that requires a teardown is a taking that will require the owner(s) to be compensated. Those of you with dreams of demolishing ToC: forgeddaboudit.
Click to expand...

But depending on how the proposed law were implemented, couldn't this lead to legally non-conforming buildings across the city. This wouldn't give the city the right to condemn, but could be grounds to deny building permits that substantiatively improve a structure. For example, Harbor Towers wouldn't have been able to upgrade the HVAC unit, leading to the building becoming economically obsolete, and in that case, a de facto devaluaing to land value?

Edit. As far as the will of the citizens, I think that this bill would have to be modified to gain support. It is too focused to catering to the desires to the "limousine liberals" and offers nothing to the residents of Brighton, Southie, Eastie, Dot, etc. They would need to add language like

"also banning polluting smokestacks from 500 yards from residentially zoned areas"

Now, you've got traction.
 
You are right that this, like any zoning change, can lead to legally non-conforming structures or uses. Again, you are correct in identifying that renovations, additions or changes in use by the grandfathered parties is a source of controversy. This is a rich vein of business mined by land use attorneys.

I am not familiar with the full details of the Harbor Towers HVAC upgrade, so I can only generalize here. As long as the renovations do not significantly alter the envelope of the grandfathered building, a court is likely to find that grandfathering remains. The court will tend to allow for change that prevents physical obsolesence.

There are many, many, exceptions that relate to replacement after destruction, time for commencement of work, and so forth. Every case is fact specific.

As to diminished value, there is another body of law that relates to "regulatory takings". Massachusetts law used to be that a land owner had a regulatory takings case if he/she/it was deprived of substantially all value of the property. The US Supreme court seemed to chill that approach somewhat a few years back when it decided the First Lutheran case.
 
This bill has nothing to do with use. It would not create NCUs. It would regulate bulk, and relates to new construction (please review the article), so what Toby said about renovations or additions not adding bulk is correct.
Also Toby, just curious, what are your sources for the context of the 1905 legislation. Why would 'yankee' legislators punish 'yankee' property owners? City hall and real estate were not dominated by the same people. Afterall, height limits were widely considered wise policy by real estate lobbies then (the NY Heights of Buildings Commission afterall took Swasey as their cue that they were good to go, and could save Manhattan property owners from crimes such as those supposedly perpetrated by the Equitable Building).
And in other news, after further research I'm becoming more hopeful(?) of your original thesis that this is a case of rent extraction.
 
I built this the other day:

2007_1206_snowman(2).jpg




Then some "activists" came by and made me destroy it because it was casting shadows.
 
LOL @ the Copley tower for being an impetus for the bill. As if these wankers are going to spend any time in Copley Sq during the winter (and as if they kick it with the homeless and the skater crowd anyway?)...come on, that's what the Winter Garden would be for! And I guarantee they won't be complaining about shade in the summertime.

Anyway, I grew up on a street lined with trees taller than any Back Bay townhouse (well, except for those ridiculous, shadow-casting 7+story giants), and I can tell you they cast some mean shadows. That got me thinking, shouldn't we cut down all of the trees on the Common for good measure? And no doubt the Comm Ave mall as well.

Also, I think this is the real reason behind the Greenway's conspicuous lack of tree cover. Don't gimme any of that bull about tree growth rates.
 
Won't the affected property owners challenge this as a class action? [my legal musings are now run dry]

I think it would be interesting to first determine the 'damage' in terms of lost FAR on the sun-ward parcels. Then if these lost FAR rights could be transferred [sold] upstream there would be [in theory] no net change in the "highest and best use" of the real estate. Next, model the potential maximum buildout.

Could be way cool in a Hugh Ferrissian sense.
 
Last edited:
a630 said:
Toby, just curious, what are your sources for the context of the 1905 legislation.
Click to expand...

In the spirit of full disclosure, my conclusion is inferential. However, the basis for my inference is as follows:

Boston historically lacked autonomy in land use regulation. The Boston Foundation has a nice little summary at Chapter 6, although it doesn't really explore the root causes.

http://www.tbf.org/tbfgen1.asp?id=3459

To put this lack of autonomy in a period context, take a look at "Boston and Its Story 1630-1915", an official city history published in 1916 under the patronage of Mayor James Michael Curley. The comments about legislature's interference in City affairs, as compared to the autonomy enjoyed by (presumably Yankee dominated) towns,are amusingly arch, for example, see pp.158, 197-198. (The book is worth looking at, if only for its photos and illustrations.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=77...mSvPcL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

As for the relations between "Yankees" and the Irish, Professor Thomas H. O'Connor of Boston College has made a cottage industry of writing interesting books on the relations between these two groups.

It would be fun to go through the legislative history of the 1905 act and contemporary press accounts (if any). As for the question of why "Yankee" land owners would voluntary restrict their profits, I posit only that a fortuitous combination of aesthetic sense, lack of market demand and geology never took them down the path of their loftily ambitious cousins in Manhattan and Chicago. (Even Louis Sullivan had to go west!) My guess is that this wasn't about the the land owning classes cutting their own profit making opportunities, but was designed to keep the Irish from despoiling (as they would have put it) the graceful city that they had built, and the nice property values that derived from that grace. See the decline of the South End as Exhibit A!
 
Last edited:
Well, limited rights may be a relic of another age, but if the city of Boston didn't keep fumbling, maybe Daddy would give them the car keys more often.

Case in point: circumventing the state law that keeps the local non-profits tax-exempt. (See earlier rants.)
 
I had the impression that height limits of yesteryear were often justified by the limited capability of fire department ladders in an era when there were no standpipes, and the pumpers were steam engines.
 
Until little over a century ago, heights were naturally limited to about 6 stories, by people's willingness to climb stairs.
 
I don't know. Electric elevator technology was pretty well along by the 1880's. Look at the Ames Building and some of the buildings that were in the Post Office Square area in that period. Or Sullivan, Guarantee Building in Buffalo, Chicago School. I agree that for residential structures, the "walk up" was what the market would bear.

But the point about firefighting technology is right on. It has never caught up.
 
From what I understand the labeling of buildings greater than 75' above mean grade (or above the lowest point of fire dept. access) as being "high rises" is/was based on the limit of existing fire dept. ladder trucks of the time. The pumpers were more than capable of providing pressure at these heights, but the fire fighters could not get there with the equipment available.

This led to the requirement for 100psi water pressure at the top of building standpipes when the building is classified as a high rise. This allowed firefighters to combat fires at the highest reaches of buildings by bringing up their hoses and tying into the building system.

Now of course city ladder trucks can reach greater heights, but the classification of high rises has not changed to meet this.
 
In addition one stair must be a smoke proof enclosure [a pressurized stair with a pressurized vestibule on every floor] that further protects the firefighters as they move through the building.

Also, minor point, in Massachusetts a highrise is 70 feet from mean grade.
 
Sorry, I've been in an IBC mode for the last 4 years. All of my projects have been out of state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top