PLAN: Downtown

Equilibria

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,959
Reaction score
8,038
I think this tweet is tied to PLAN: Downtown and the Downtown Revitalization report released yesterday:

1666881542842.png


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

,

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 www.bostonplans.org
 
Blackbird said:
800ft? In my Downtown Boston?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
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
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Equilibria said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree having the separate thread is good, thanks for creating. Just wanted to connect those quotes to what you brought up here.
 
Equilibria said:
FWIW, the heights only indicate the FAA limit.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackbird said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bankerandtradesman.com

BPDA Proposes 400-Foot Downtown Building Heights - Banker & Tradesman

Base building heights for development in parts of Boston’s Downtown Crossing would increase from 155 to 400 feet under proposed new zoning unveiled by the Boston Planning and Development Agency.
bankerandtradesman.com 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.

1674064127415.png
 
Equilibria said:
bankerandtradesman.com

BPDA Proposes 400-Foot Downtown Building Heights - Banker & Tradesman

Base building heights for development in parts of Boston’s Downtown Crossing would increase from 155 to 400 feet under proposed new zoning unveiled by the Boston Planning and Development Agency.
bankerandtradesman.com 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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Equilibria said:
bankerandtradesman.com

BPDA Proposes 400-Foot Downtown Building Heights - Banker & Tradesman

Base building heights for development in parts of Boston’s Downtown Crossing would increase from 155 to 400 feet under proposed new zoning unveiled by the Boston Planning and Development Agency.
bankerandtradesman.com 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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
DBM said:
You mean the one the BPDA commanded to be scrapped in 2016--that 683-footer? Yeah, doubtful it's coming back... ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
themissinglink said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?]
 
12345 said:
bankerandtradesman.com

PLAN: Downtown Seeks to Simplify Development Rules - Banker & Tradesman

The study recommendations offer “consistent and fair baseline and bonus heights” for new projects, the draft plan states, replacing a mishmash of more than 20 height limits.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com

www.bisnow.com

BPDA Unveils New Plan To Guide Revitalization, Growth Of Downtown

The plan is a window into the future of Boston's downtown, proposing new height limits for buildings, new subdistricts and more.
www.bisnow.com www.bisnow.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing these links. Embedded in the 2nd article is a direct link to the PLAN itself, here:

On page 42 of 60 are the zoning recommendations below. Note my yellow highlight for the best recommendation of them all!

1692995602264.png


What do we think will happen next, and why are so many areas still left out? (for instance the sizable garage near South Station with the currently awful lab proposal)
 
DZH22 said:
What do we think will happen next, and why are so many areas still left out? (for instance the sizable garage near South Station with the currently awful lab proposal)
Click to expand...
Well, PLAN: Downtown isn't the only PLAN (all caps) currently being worked on by BDPA - there looks to be a whole series, likely intending to cover the whole city eventually neighborhood by neighborhood. It just seems to be based on thr vagaries of where BPDA draws neighborhood boundaries. There's a PLAN:Charlestown, PLAN:East Boston, PLAN: Newmarket, Plan JP/Rox, etc, etc. I imagine now that they've finalized the first few we'll see in the coming years PLAN: Leather District or PLAN Chinatown.
 
Stlin said:
Well, PLAN: Downtown isn't the only PLAN (all caps) currently being worked on by BDPA - there looks to be a whole series, likely intending to cover the whole city eventually neighborhood by neighborhood. It just seems to be based on thr vagaries of where BPDA draws neighborhood boundaries. There's a PLAN:Charlestown, PLAN:East Boston, PLAN: Newmarket, Plan JP/Rox, etc, etc. I imagine now that they've finalized the first few we'll see in the coming years PLAN: Leather District or PLAN Chinatown.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that PLAN Chinatown is being separated. Chinatown groups have been heavily involved in the BPDA PLAN Downtown process (and Chinatown was supposed to be included in final PLAN Downtown). There must be some contention about the outcomes, so more "planning" is needed.
 
DZH22 said:
What do we think will happen next, and why are so many areas still left out? (for instance the sizable garage near South Station with the currently awful lab proposal)
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that the Leather District was excluded here--yet it has been encompassed within the BPDA's census-tract derived definition of "Downtown" for many many years: www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/17be3f47-f413-4e07-a6cc-c9439e8efc3e/

Why deviate from such long-standing precedence?
 
https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/2dff06b0-46c5-4d8e-9b9b-1b273f1098c2

Some recent information in the public comments received in response to PLAN: Downtown. Aside from the usual height complaints from 45 Province, the owner of PI Alley wants the ability to build a mixed-use tower above the 400ft limitation in the plan. They approached the city several years ago with a plan for a 460ft tower but did not go through with it due to height constraints. The Druker Company also wants PDA ability to pursue large-scale development of its sites downtown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top