PLAN: Downtown

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,001
Reaction score
5,272
I think this tweet is tied to PLAN: Downtown and the Downtown Revitalization report released yesterday:

1666881542842.png



,

 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,001
Reaction score
5,272
800ft? In my Downtown Boston?
FWIW, the heights only indicate the FAA limit. While the BPDA mentions allowing buildings up to that limit (like they did at Winthrop Square) or other applicable shadow limits, it's not like this is a proposal to allow 800' as-of-right in that area. The map is a little misleading, and I suspect Steve Adams was going for clicks.

That said, an attitude from Wu that the statutory limits should be seen as the max if you can make the case for yourself is a big shift from Walsh and definitely from Menino. If your project is good, she thinks you can hit the FAA line. While this effort only addresses Downtown, extending that philosophy potentially opens up 1,000 feet at Hynes or the Dalton Garage, or 700' in the Bulfinch Triangle.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,836
Reaction score
4,532
Last edited:

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,001
Reaction score
5,272
Lengthier article by Steve in B&T on this (posted originally in General Boston Discussion):


Link to article:
https://bankerandtradesman.com/boston-set-to-offer-incentives-for-downtown-housing-development/

^A few pertinent quotes therein about the height limits and potential parcels that could take advantage of a new approach here
Sorry - I checked that very thread before posting this and somehow missed your post, but I still think having a separate thread is good.

Jemison's quotes do imply that he sees the 800' region actually going toward 800'.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,836
Reaction score
4,532
Sorry - I checked that very thread before posting this and somehow missed your post, but I still think having a separate thread is good.

Jemison's quotes do imply that he sees the 800' region actually going toward 800'.
Definitely agree having the separate thread is good, thanks for creating. Just wanted to connect those quotes to what you brought up here.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
889
Reaction score
1,137
FWIW, the heights only indicate the FAA limit.
This isn’t true. There are faint topography lines showing a gradual increase in height as you move away from the Common. Going from 100ft on Tremont to 600ft in the Theater District.

But the area around Province Street doesn’t have those same lines. Looks like it’s just “800 and have at it” up there.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,001
Reaction score
5,272
This isn’t true. There are faint topography lines showing a gradual increase in height as you move away from the Common. Going from 100ft on Tremont to 600ft in the Theater District.

But the area around Province Street doesn’t have those same lines. Looks like it’s just “800 and have at it” up there.
That's how I interpret "800-725 | FAA". I suppose with the context of the full slides it could be two different ideas like "800 ideally, or whatever the FAA limit is", but I'd need the rest of the slides to know.

I think the concentric lines refer to the shadow regulation. The FAA limit is not displayed on the map. The point of the study is to resolve all of these different rules into a single set of limits that's easy to reference, so I guess we should wait for the final product.

I do agree with you that the area they're focusing on - and where both of Jemison's sites are located - is 800 feet in the City's current thinking. Incidentally, the actual FAA surface in that area is more like 750-775.
 

Top