One Mystic | 1 Mystic Avenue | Charlestown

BPDA says it'll cause traffic.


"Charlestown Planner Ted Schwartzberg criticized the project as being way to dense for the area and for not fitting into the City’s planning efforts. He also said the City planning documents used by One Mystic to develop their plan were “mischaracterized.”

“I did the Sullivan Square disposition study and it does not enumerate the density that is proposed ,” he said.

“This is a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 12, which is appropriate for a skyscraper downtown by my office,” he said. “Hood Park has an FAR of 2.0. This is six times the density of what Hood Park is…To put it succinctly, this is not consistent with the findings of the Planning Study or the zoning in place right now.”

Later, Schwartzberg said such a building would set a precedent, and at that density, every road in Sullivan Square would be gridlocked all the time."


 
So DOA... thats too bad and unsurprising for Boston.
 
Gridlock due to new buildings in Sullivan Square.. Wish it was served by any sort of public transit....

I hope he realizes that being the planner of the referenced document and complaining about traffic issues points out the issue that for some reason its presumed that Sullivan Square developments shouldnt require ample parking in the first place... (I pray for it to not be Assembly 2.0), and that as a planner, he can dictate the parking requirements and get the density without the added traffic. There's very little reason to use a car on a daily basis if you live in Sullivan.
 
Vagabond said:
BPDA says it'll cause traffic.


"Charlestown Planner Ted Schwartzberg criticized the project as being way to dense for the area and for not fitting into the City’s planning efforts. He also said the City planning documents used by One Mystic to develop their plan were “mischaracterized.”

“I did the Sullivan Square disposition study and it does not enumerate the density that is proposed ,” he said.

“This is a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 12, which is appropriate for a skyscraper downtown by my office,” he said. “Hood Park has an FAR of 2.0. This is six times the density of what Hood Park is…To put it succinctly, this is not consistent with the findings of the Planning Study or the zoning in place right now.”

Later, Schwartzberg said such a building would set a precedent, and at that density, every road in Sullivan Square would be gridlocked all the time."


Click to expand...

So... am I understanding correctly that the neighbors want it... and the BPDA doesn't? WT everloving F?! They need to get over themselves with the Disposition Study and get with the program.
 
It is really too bad that Sullivan Square is not serviced by the MBTA. If it were, you could dramatically reduce the parking in developments located there and reduce the traffic impact. But the City never thought to run the T there. So sad.
 
Reading in between the lines I see Ted Schwartzberg saying they promised the Hood Park development X density so that makes it impossible to give this one X+ density as it wouldnt be fair to them. IE private interests with deep pockets have influenced the BDPA members to vote against it
 
Dear future Mayor ___, you've got the Bricklayers, the Carpenters, the Painters, and the Teamsters all interested in a project in a blighted area, but the city bureaucracy is blocking it... Any good ideas?
 
Last edited:
Suffolk 83 said:
Reading in between the lines I see Ted Schwartzberg saying they promised the Hood Park development X density so that makes it impossible to give this one X+ density as it wouldnt be fair to them. IE private interests with deep pockets have influenced the BDPA members to vote against it
Click to expand...
not even close to accurate relating to Hood ownership. rising tides and all that.

stefal said:
There's very little reason to use a car on a daily basis if you live in Sullivan.
Click to expand...
there is still a market demand for parking spaces even if the cars arent being used on a daily basis. Im not agreeing with any of what the BPDA is saying here, but just pointing out that parking needs does not equate to traffic.
Technically if you are letting peak hour traffic/operations dictate future development than there would be ZERO development as Sullivan is already (or was anyway) over capacity during peak hours. The redesign of the roadways is not adding capacity.
The BPDA has NEVER used traffic to determine density in any of their planning studies. Most times the transportation component is done after the planning study is already complete (see the current PLAN Dot Ave transportation study being done now, years after the density was set).
I can see their hesitancy about letting the 1st development (of many, many, many, that are coming), or 2nd if you include Hood, start at FAR 12, but this peak hour traffic criteria isnt the way to go about it and sets a dangerous precedence for other BPDA planning initiatives and development in other areas of the city.
 
real_EthanHunt said:
not even close to accurate relating to Hood ownership. rising tides and all that.
Click to expand...

I dont follow... rising tides lifts all boats? Isnt the hood planning completed? So it would more expensive and time consuming to resubmit plans and so very unlikely do go back to the drawing board
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Reading in between the lines I see Ted Schwartzberg saying they promised the Hood Park development X density so that makes it impossible to give this one X+ density as it wouldnt be fair to them. IE private interests with deep pockets have influenced the BDPA members to vote against it
Click to expand...

Vagabond said:
Dear future Mayor ___, you've got the Bricklayers, the Carpenters, the Painters, and the Teamsters all interested in a project in a blighted area, the the city bureaucracy is blocking it... Any good ideas?
Click to expand...

Isn't this one of the things Wu is running? Consistent and documented zoning, more as-of-right projects etc... vaguely seem to recall one of her positions being that the planning and approval process is way too ad-hoc and prone to this kind of bullshit (You can't do Y because we didn't let X do it at time T).

I'm not saying I'm in favor of Wu as mayor, but I think that's moving in the right direction... stop leaving every project in the hands of some city bureaucrat that may have many biases for not wanting to approve things.
 
393b40 said:
Isn't this one of the things Wu is running? Consistent and documented zoning, more as-of-right projects etc...
Click to expand...

It's hard to disagree with these aspirations at quick glance, but isn't a huge issue (in Boston in general) the fact that it's impossibly hard to get existing resident/owners to agree to zoning reform that would actually add any substantive density? "Consistent zoning" is not a meaningful discussion unless it also includes some indications of what that reformed zoning is going to be. Consistent and locked-down zoning that is itself overly restrictive and caters to status quo preservation for the already-haves is not an improvement. Part of why Boston has been developing-by-variance is the old boys club (bad), but another major reason is that the only way certain projects (that make total sense holistically) get through is if residents are promised "trust us we're only making an exception this time." (then the residents go "whew, maybe my neighborhood won't change too much after all".) Wake me up when Wu says "consistent and reasonably generous zoning that supports Boston's growth and major housing shortfall."
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I dont follow... rising tides lifts all boats? Isnt the hood planning completed? So it would more expensive and time consuming to resubmit plans and so very unlikely do go back to the drawing board
Click to expand...
why would Hood be against the area turning over from industrial to mixed use? its good for them if the surrounding area improves.
 
real_EthanHunt said:
why would Hood be against the area turning over from industrial to mixed use? its good for them if the surrounding area improves.
Click to expand...
I'm not following that closely but I thought there was already a redevlopement plan in place
 
they have master plan. correct
you said they were behind the scenes against One Mystic.
I gave you a reason why that is an incorrect assumption.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I'm not following that closely but I thought there was already a redevlopement plan in place
Click to expand...

I think the argument is regardless of the FAR guiding Hood's redevelopment, increased upzoning and activity in the area is going to invariably increase the value of their property
 
DBM said:
In principle I'm all for this; however, I cannot help but notice that this site is well within the 528-foot threshold of I-93 NB/SB to incur the risk of "Black Lung Lofts" summarized here (see approx. the 20th paragraph for the 528-foot reference).
Click to expand...
How much is LA’s particular climate and volumes on I-5? I suspect a lot of particulates from exhaust and tires accumulates (and travels as dust to nearby homes) in LA because it is not washed away by rain and instead gets repeatedly kicked into the air falls and gets kicked into the air again.

In Boston may have enough year round precipitation that we don’t quite have the tire dust?

I think inner I-93 has traffic of 150,000 per day vs I-5 doing twice that (300,000)
 
Arlington said:
How much is LA’s particular climate and volumes on I-5? I suspect a lot of particulates from exhaust and tires accumulates (and travels as dust to nearby homes) in LA because it is not washed away by rain and instead gets repeatedly kicked into the air falls and gets kicked into the air again.

In Boston may have enough year round precipitation that we don’t quite have the tire dust?

I think inner I-93 has traffic of 150,000 per day vs I-5 doing twice that (300,000)
Click to expand...
Check out the CAFEH Study at Tufts Medical. Boston is not immune to highway induced fine particulate pollution.

CAFEH Study | Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health

sites.tufts.edu sites.tufts.edu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top