PLAN: Downtown

[Equilibria]

I think this tweet is tied to PLAN: Downtown and the Downtown Revitalization report released yesterday:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1585634932939927553

https://www.bostonplans.org/news-calendar/news-updates/2022/10/27/mayor-wu-announces-downtown-revitalization-report

,

PLAN: Downtown | Boston Planning & Development Agency

Active planning initiatives being coordinated by the Boston Planning & Development Agency Community Planning department. Find more information inside each initiative, including details, associated files, and contact information.

www.bostonplans.org

 

[Blackbird]

800ft? In my Downtown Boston?

 

[Equilibria]

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]

Lengthier article by Steve in B&T on this (posted originally in General Boston Discussion):

https://archboston.com/community/threads/general-boston-discussion.5457/post-440068

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

 

[Equilibria]

Lengthier article by Steve in B&T on this (posted originally in General Boston Discussion):

https://archboston.com/community/threads/general-boston-discussion.5457/post-440068

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Equilibria]

Log In - Banker & Tradesman

Please contact us at customerservice@thewarrengroup.com if you have any difficulty logging in. Gain Insight and Intelligence Keep abreast of significant real estate, banking and financial developments in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Make smart business decisions with the most comprehensive...

bankerandtradesman.com

Could probably have put this in the Bromfield thread, given that the whole point seems to be to make their building by-right.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Log In - Banker & Tradesman

Please contact us at customerservice@thewarrengroup.com if you have any difficulty logging in. Gain Insight and Intelligence Keep abreast of significant real estate, banking and financial developments in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Make smart business decisions with the most comprehensive...

bankerandtradesman.com

Could probably have put this in the Bromfield thread, given that the whole point seems to be to make their building by-right.

View attachment 33183

It also makes a number of other previously proposed parcels as rights, such as 273 Tremont in Chinatown/Theater District. And it creates some new explicit character preservations areas for Row Houses in Bay Village, and Chinatown.

 

[themissinglink]

Log In - Banker & Tradesman

Please contact us at customerservice@thewarrengroup.com if you have any difficulty logging in. Gain Insight and Intelligence Keep abreast of significant real estate, banking and financial developments in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Make smart business decisions with the most comprehensive...

bankerandtradesman.com

Could probably have put this in the Bromfield thread, given that the whole point seems to be to make their building by-right.

View attachment 33183

During a media briefing in October, BPDA Director Arthur Jemison mentioned the 1 Bromfield St. tower and the Pi Alley Garage at 275 Washington St. as properties that “can get a second look” under the administration’s downtown rezoning plans.

I wonder if or how the Bromfield proposal will change as a result of this. DTX could really use a residential high-rise in that spot, although I'm doubtful that the original 683' tower will be proposed again.

 

[DBM]

I wonder if or how the Bromfield proposal will change as a result of this. DTX could really use a residential high-rise in that spot, although I'm doubtful that the original 683' tower will be proposed again.

You mean the one the BPDA commanded to be scrapped in 2016--that 683-footer? Yeah, doubtful it's coming back...

 

[themissinglink]

You mean the one the BPDA commanded to be scrapped in 2016--that 683-footer? Yeah, doubtful it's coming back...

Yes, I remember when the tower was scrapped in 2016, which is why I was confused regarding the BPDA Director's comment that 1 Bromfield St. is one of the "properties that can get a second look" since it hasn't been an active proposal in 7 years. I assume he must be referring to the current 11-21 Bromfield Street proposal, and not the original "1 Bromfield Street" tower. Perhaps this was obvious and I was overthinking it; I was under the impression that the BPDA would differentiate between the old pre-2016 proposal and the current proposal by using their respective addresses.

 

[DBM]

Yes, I remember when the tower was scrapped in 2016, which is why I was confused regarding the BPDA Director's comment that 1 Bromfield St. is one of the "properties that can get a second look" since it hasn't been an active proposal in 7 years. I assume he must be referring to the current 11-21 Bromfield Street proposal, and not the original "1 Bromfield Street" tower. Perhaps this was obvious and I was overthinking it; I was under the impression that the BPDA would differentiate between the old pre-2016 proposal and the current proposal by using their respective addresses.

Ah, thanks for the clarification--now I see what you're getting at. Maybe there's a footnote or brief reference in the 11 Bromfield proposal iteration about why they decided to rebrand from "1 Bromfield" to "11 Bromfield"? It is confusing (if one forgets that the 1 Bromfield iteration was formally canceled).

[of course, they may have decided to rebrand for purely superstitious reasons, not having to do with any actual relocation of the doorway from the present location of 1 Bromfield, to the present location of 11 Bromfield?]