Profile of Boston's Chief Planner; discusses towers and Dainty Dot

"Think about what the difference between what a Frank Gehry building would have been like as opposed to the ICA," says Shen. "The ICA is really just a box."
Click to expand...

No shit.

Such Kremlin-watching is especially crucial in the Boston development process, which is marked by a level of flexibility that many developers find infuriating, but, if used properly, can help a builder legally violate nearly every zoning rule that applies to a particular parcel. And if the developer is building on a parcel larger than an acre - also known as a Planned Development Area - there are essentially no zoning rules and the whole project can be designed from scratch, governed only by the rules imposed on a case-by-case basis by the BRA on issues ranging from size to use to height to setback from the road
Click to expand...

And this is a good thing, how?

Then there's - let's call a spade a spade here - the legalized extortion known as "linkage." This is a crucial part of the community buy-in process and includes developer promises of affordable housing units above the required minimums or a new park or a new firetruck or nice street lights or new sidewalks or improvements to the local elementary school - until the community is satisfied with the package being offered.
Click to expand...

Graft is alive and well.

He likes understated, contemporary, modernist design.
Click to expand...

Read: Boring boxes.

Over all a really good article I'd say. I would have liked to see more of the inner workings of the office but then it might be more of a slam than a fluff (also I'm sure it would piss of Comrade Menino).
 
Well, technically yes, but a corrupt system is a corrupt system. What we have here is basically the Boston Thunderdome of Development. I guess this is what happeneds when people don't want to pay taxes to pay for services, they have to squeeze them out of developers. The whole system is fucked, if you ask me.
 
Whereas what I see here is an attempt to inject democracy into a complicated planning process. It doesn't always produce the fastest or best results, but that's true of democracy in general.
 
I wish I could like Shen, but I've seen his hand in two projects now, and the result is awful.

The first project is the Dainty Dot, where he was more than happy to scrap the existing facade in favor of another characterless box. He frankly doesn't like facadectomies. They epitomize everything his MIT professors taught him was false and bad.

The second project is 212 Stuart, where the architect faced the difficult task of integrating two incongruous facades. The developer had worked a deal with the neighborhood (Bay Village) that involved modest set-backs, an arcade, and a cornice that nodded to the height of the neighborhood of nineteenth century townhouses behind the building. It was far from perfect, but given the constraints of the location and the existing building, it was fine.

Shen pulled out his pen and wiped that all away. Far too fussy for him. He wants ... you guessed it ... a pure, characterless box. And the neighborhood is ripping mad about that. It's not just that he's wiping out all of the contextualization, he favors something with absolutely zero visual interest and zero ornament. Back to first principles. Blocky blocks.

The good news is that we won't see any more Hotel Commonwealths with him at the helm. the bad news is that we won't see any 111 Huntingtons, either. What we'll get is what you see in the Northeastern dorm on Columbus and the Dainty Dot re-do. Stripped minimalism, 1960s style.

It's old school modernist orthodoxy, MIT architecture-style, and the buildings it produces are, to my eye, incredibly depressing. Gropius's Kennedy Building at Government Center may be reviled by most of us who post on this board, but we must remember it's not reviled where Mr. Shen was trained. We can only hope that the power or tenure of the architect-as-planner is limited.
 
My understanding is that if a developer really wanted to push, they could sue the city on the grounds that linkage payments are unconstitutional. I heard this from a well-known lawyer at a very, very well-known firm. But, he said, "which developer is going to take on City Hall, virtually ensuring that they will never build in this city again?"

Developers are aware of this, and it's a little unspoken, and nobody wants to take on the costly and lengthy legal battle, where the only "victory" would be the right not to make a linkage payment, and the right to never build in Boston again.

It would be nice to see somebody like Don Chiafaro stand up against this, get into the mud and really fight over it. He should retire soon anyway, and taking on the linkage payment extortion would be more of a lasting tribute to Boston real estate development than International Place ever could be.
 
I wouldn't put too much stock into the notion that 'he is at the helm'. The BRA hasn't traditionally worked that way and I doubt it will now. There are too many levels of review for one person to single handedly put his mark on the city. Power isn't centralized in the BRA and Chen isn't even the director.

He has always seemed to be an okay guy to me although I think the description of him as a moderating player who is able to craft compromise is overstated. He can often come off as arrogant and aloof. I was at a meeting for Seaport Square not long ago and he was very high handed at the podium. He took a condescending tack towards John Hynes and it was quite evident that John wasn't pleased. That's not the first time I've seen him ruffle feathers.
 
I agree, sidewalks, the BRA has always been a multi-headed agency and it will continue to be. But Mr. Shen's area of background and interest is architecture, as the article makes clear.

There are many other aspects of planning: targeting specific sites or neighborhoods, economic wheeling and dealing (including linkage) and political deal brokering on behalf of favored interests. Most of the power brokers in the BRA historically haven't cared a whit about architecture, from what I can tell. Usually the BRA was content to "leave that to the architects," sometimes trying to hammer out a compromise with a few tweaks when a architect's vision clashed with either the BRA's overall plan or a neighborhood's preference.

What's different is a more heavy-handed approach of "BRA as architect" - not simply vetting materials (a role they historically neglected anyway) or tweaking the location of garage entrances or ensuring that a design aligned with their favored uses - e.g., making sure there was provision for retail or a restaurant on the ground floor.

Taking out the red pen and actually re-envisioning renderings and stripping off detail ... that's new. And insisting on architectural changes that disrupt deals already brokered with a neighborhood ... that's really new.
 
I've only heard the man speak twice; both times at Seaport Square meetings. He seemed to keep the ball moving, and seemed to be fairly even-minded. He wagged his finger a couple times at John Hynes, but mostly I got the feeling he doesn't suffer fools (for example, Ms. Li) gladly.
 
The BRA has been intimately involved in architectural design and review for years...long before Kairos was christened 'planner in chief'. This is simply a titular change, Kairos, Prataap Petrose, David Carlson and Homer Russell before them, have long played a very involved role in the design of buildings. The red pen has had the cap off for quite a while.
 
Linkage (in the Menino era) does little else than offer incumbent pols an opportunity to point to token projects to curry favor with their constituents: "See, we're getting it done for your community!" It does nothing to make Boston a more livable city, or a better place to do business.

I see no evidence of Mr. Shen's affection for Alvar Aalto's work in the dogshit that the BRA regularly green-lights.
 
Sidewalks, you may know the history of this better than I do, but are you aware of any other instance where the BRA tore up the plans on a minor building that already had a neighborhood thumbs-up simply because it violated the BRA's architectural sensibilities? In my (limited) exposure to the BRA's intervention, the red-pen has been limited to rather banal edits - of the "could you do more brick?" sort, and usually focused on larger projects. Where was the red pen at the Hotel Commonwealth or One Charles or Atelier 505?

As for 111 Huntington, my understanding is that the 'hat' was driven by Mr. Menino's aesthetics, not Mr. Shen's.
 
Having sat in many design meetings with BRA officials, including Kairos, Prataap and David Carlson, I can assure you that their interest and influence has not been as superficial or distant as you seem to imply.
 
^^ Were they around for the design stage of the Hotel Commonwealth.

If so, what exactly to they contribute to it?
 
After reading the long article it's still a mystery as to whether Shen will improve things or not as the city's chief planner. It says that his fingerprint is on nearly every major development in Boston since '93. That fact is not very reassuring.

Also, I don't want to jump down the guy's throat, but isn't his owning an apartment building in Chinatown somewhat of a conflict of interest?
 
That article quotes Joe Fallon stating:

"If there was anyone to be in charge of a skyline, I think Kairos is the right guy, and it's going to be hard to find anyone who thinks differently, because he's such a talent,"

Given the crap Joe Fallon has built so far on the South Boston Waterfront, receiving a compliment from him makes me wonder if Kairos Shen is doing a good enough job. In all fairness the city may or may not have had any input on Fallon's buildings since I believe they are located on MassPort land, but still receiving such high accolades from a developer who so far has put up nothing but low quality buildings, makes me a bit queasy.
 
Seriously, sidewalks, in the public interactions I've seen in the past, the BRA people have been quite deferential to architects. I'm sure they are more pointed behind closed doors. But in the neighborhoods we often see some design iterations long before they reach the BRA, sometimes long before property is formally acquired. Developers want to get some sense of the community reaction. And again, I can't recall the BRA ever doing more than "tweak" on a building of less than 100 K square feet. My experience is limited but it's not zero, I've been involved in the iteration of several projects through from sketch to occupancy, and I've been at endless meetings where designs have been presented and I've been in lengthy meetings with architects where the BRA has not been present.

Should I take your observation to mean that the BRA's red pen has ACTIVELY helped shape the work that Beton Brut has aptly characterized as dogshit? Which genius at the BRA should we credit for the massive brick wall at the top of One Charles or the horrific balconies on Atelier 505 or the neo-housing project at Northeastern? Because the red pen has been messing at length in the fine details of 212 Stuart. If the practice is longstanding and not new, this would seem to imply incompetence on a grand scale.
 
Yes, the BRA is always deferential in the public square. The Menino administration, which gives the BRA its marching orders, does not want to be perceived as trampling neighborhood opinion.

The neighborhood DOES NOT SEE ANYTHING BEFORE THE BRA. That would be political suicide. The worst thing you can do in this town is upstage Menino or catch him off guard. He hates reading about things in the paper. He always wants to know in advance. Any developer who has an ounce of common sense vets a proposal with the BRA design team first. A large project will be then shown to the mayor himself. All this happens before the development team approaches the neighborhood.

And yes, I am quite sure that both the BRA and the BCDC had their red pen out with One Charles and Atelier. That doesn't mean that they design every window and terrace. They suggest and guide the massing and use of materials. Sometimes they instruct the developer to make wholesale changes and suggest a scale or design that they think appropriate. That is generally the extent of their involvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top