Questions for the BRA

KentXie

KentXie

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
4,185
Reaction score
744
So apparently this Thursday I believe, a group of BRA officials will be coming to my Urban Economics class for some Q&A. I'm preparing to grill them for all they're worth. The topic focuses on the waterfront, but I'm going to take the opportunity to ask other questions about the city such as:

What are your stances to shadow laws in the CBD?
Why do shadows play such a large role, even when the area it affects and time it affects is miniscule?
Through urban economic models, the CBD tends to result in higher rent prices and higher density (height). Why are there so many height limits (excluding FAA caps) and why do communities have so much power using that argument?
Explain why the proposal at Dainty Dot was deemed to tall at 350ft and why the original proposal was scrap because it was too much of a landmark that it will pull attention away from the Greenway? Is that not going against the urban economics model?
Why are proposals at the high spine always accused of being too tall?
What is too tall in a city?

Anything else that you guys would like me to ask?
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Why are the development parcels encouraged to have such large footprints?

This is a far bigger cause of out-of-scale buildings than their height.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

You might want to point out that this really isn't the greenway but just a wide sidewalk.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

KentXie said:
So apparently this Thursday I believe, a group of BRA officials will be coming to my Urban Economics class for some Q&A. I'm preparing to grill them for all they're worth. The topic focuses on the waterfront, but I'm going to take the opportunity to ask other questions about the city such as:

What are your stances to shadow laws in the CBD?
Why do shadows play such a large role, even when the area it affects and time it affects is miniscule?
Through urban economic models, the CBD tends to result in higher rent prices and higher density (height). Why are there so many height limits (excluding FAA caps) and why do communities have so much power using that argument?
Explain why the proposal at Dainty Dot was deemed to tall at 350ft and why the original proposal was scrap because it was too much of a landmark that it will pull attention away from the Greenway? Is that not going against the urban economics model?
Why are proposals at the high spine always accused of being too tall?
What is too tall in a city?

Anything else that you guys would like me to ask?
Click to expand...

Gird your loins because these people like to think of themselves as being above question and they will retaliate in some manner.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I like ablarc's question above, and any question that probes why megablock stumps are helpful in building a viable district.

More...

Having spent upwards of $1 million in taxpayer dollars on a decade of master planning the South Boston Waterfront; and having spent $5 billion in taxpayer investment in area infrastructure (MBTA, Convention Center, CAT/Tunnel exits, Harbor Cleanup, etc.); and having significantly increased the value of private properties by tripling their development rights above and beyond what they purchased as-of-right; the questions are:

1. Why did the BRA recently abandon its 10-year vision of the Waterfront as an urban neighborhood with a critical mass of residential development in favor of an office-heavy area called the Innnovation District?

If the BRA responds that they support a critical mass of residential development, using the mythical Seaport Square 2500 residential units as an example:

2. Where are the plans for a police station, a fire station, a community center, a library, a school, and other basic civic amenities that would ordinarily be necessary to accommodate a dense urban neighborhood. The only projects moving forward are private office towers and hotels with scant representation of other land uses, and few if any civic spaces.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

ablarc said:
Why are the development parcels encouraged to have such large footprints?
Click to expand...

I'd ask that, and also why they are so height-averse but not landscraper-averse, and which of the two -- tall buildings or sprawling urban redevelopment schemes -- is more compatible with a dense, vibrant urban environment (think: Vancouver vs. Phoenix; a no-brainer for anyone not at the BRA).

I like all of your questions, Kent, especially about the Dainty Dot project.

I'd also generally ask why, amid pretty clear post-1960s urban redevelopment evidence that successful neighborhoods (NYC's West Village, the Back Bay, any desirable part of any city in the world) combine certain elements -- small footprints, diverse uses, architectural preservation, potentially height, potentially an iconic building or two, and an absence of parking lots -- Boston continues to zone for Monster Truck buildings (the Seaport), create mono-use environments (Liberty Mutual), destroy the history and architectural legacy for which the city is singularly known (just right now we've got wrecking balls aimed at Shreve, Crump and Low; Dainty Dot; the old MDC building getting razed for a chimerical art school; the Payless building that will be the next to go in DTX if things ever pick up); demand that developers shorten and de-beautify their buildings (Dainty Dot and Chiofaro, for fear that he create an "icon" on the harbor, in a high-rise area), and build abundant parking spaces (Seaport, Druker's massive parking lot at SCL).

It seems that despite Menino faddishly jumping on some hip bandwagon (or bike, as it were) every now and then, the city's real-estate hierarchy, personified by the BRA, is utterly ignorant of what many other cities have learned and unrepetant about the lessons of the 1960s, including those that came at the hands of the BRA. (This is, after all, an organization created to destroy the West End/Scollay Square and create Government Center.) Aside from the huge issue of not having a clear, transparent development process, why doesn't Boston blanket-landmark every prewar building; encourage taller, svelter buildings via zoning; and really have some serious incentives to get rid of surface parking lots and build infill rather than raze 100-year-old buildings?

Anyone who doesn't realize that hundred-year-old terra cotta and hand-lain brick create an environment that allows for richer quality of life (and richer home values) than a pre-fab, pre-cast box should be a street sweeper, not a "city planner."
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

^^
itchy, methinks you doth give the BRA too much credit and power - all this talk about preservation is mis-aimed at the BRA, for they do not determine the fate of historic buildings or have the statutory power to "blanket-landmark every prewar building" (which btw would throw every iota of American property rights out the window)....the Boston Landmarks Commission is the only city agency with the powers to do what you're talking about, not the BRA.

And the fact that developers want to build buildings with 25,000 SF footprints in an area capped by the FAA at 300' (the Seaport) has absolutely nothing to do with the BRA (it's not "zoned for Monster Truck buildings," that's the market's fault because that's what tenants demand, not what the BRA has zoned the area for - if they required 10,000 SF office footprints guess what - you'd have parking lots for the next 50 years because no one woud build) - they couldn't wave a wand and make any of that go away. I'm sure they'd be flattered by your assumption of such extraordinary omnipotence, but they'd also be quick to point out that you're wrong about it.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Ok I'll write down your questions that you have listed though I need to do some research on the abandoned 10 year vision to make the Seaport more residential heavy than office heavy before I ask the question.

For the landscaper, it seems that greenwayguy may have a point so I'll try to ask them about its policy on how land plots are divied up and if they have any sort of power in controlling the size of the proposal.

I just pray that the officials they send over actually have answers and knowledge over what's being planned in the city, not some general employee that knows the answer to urban economic questions, but have no idea what Seaport Square is or Innovation District etc etc.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

greenwayguy1982 said:
^^
. . . all this talk about preservation is mis-aimed at the BRA, for they do not determine the fate of historic buildings ....
Click to expand...

I think the BRA quite a lot to do with the unfortunate fate of the Gaiety Theater, the imminent demolition of the MDC building, and the probable loss of the Shreve and Dainty Dot buildings. Further, the city's design review process and the BRA seems to be ineffectual in encouraging or mandating basic thoughtful urban design in newly constructed buildings. See Trinity Place, The W hotel, Hotel Commonwealth, Intercontinental Hotel, One Charles, Seaport District construction, recent construction Charles River Park just to name a few right off the top of the head
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

^^
Ah yes, but don't forget that every one of the historic examples you cite was brought to the Landmarks Commission for a final, determinant vote. In each of those cases, the building was found not to be a landmark. In others (Filenes (no jokes, please...), Exchange Place, the entire Fort Point district, etc.), buildings were found to be landmark-worthy and were preserved. Again...BLC, not BRA.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

You may be on to something, but I would counter by saying the BRA has encouraged the demolition of the Dainty Dot building, which the developer had proposed to save the facade of.
Why?
Because it just looked too damn good and was too damn tall. So....
"Make it shorter and uglier"
"But, if we do, we can't save the pretty facade."
"Bah!! BRA cares not for pretty, or making sense (or cents)."
"Okie Doke. Sorry Boston."

So, here in my paraphrased world, you can see that the BRA is directly responsible for the removal of a historic landmark (whether or not recognized as one.)
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

KentXie said:
So apparently this Thursday I believe, a group of BRA officials will be coming to my Urban Economics class for some Q&A. I'm preparing to grill them for all they're worth. The topic focuses on the waterfront, but I'm going to take the opportunity to ask other questions about the city such as:
Click to expand...

Either this class is very small, or the other students are mutes, or you are one of those students who always has their hand up, but the idea that this is going to be a round of 20 questions asked by you seems very far-fetched.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

stellarfun said:
Either this class is very small, or the other students are mutes, or you are one of those students who always has their hand up, but the idea that this is going to be a round of 20 questions asked by you seems very far-fetched.
Click to expand...

Actually simplify the questions. The people that work at the BRA are all political favors. So their brains might not work like yours. The possibility of at least 20% of the working staff at the BRA probably have a college degree. Maybe 2% of the BRA staff members might have a masters and I would bet my life savings that 100% of these shitheads never had real world experience in building their own projects.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Just watch out - Greenwayguy is hard at work studying your questions, and will be prepared to respond when he enters your classroom with the rest of his delegation.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Shepard said:
Just watch out - Greenwayguy is hard at work studying your questions, and will be prepared to respond when he enters your classroom with the rest of his delegation.
Click to expand...

That issue is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. How can you suggest that someone appears to be a BRA employee without attacking their integrity?
 
Kentxie, You really want to impress the BRA with your development knowledge, Show up with Arch Boston bloggers Toby, Lurker, Sicilian, Ablarc and Ned Flaterty.
This crew alone would make the BRA look like a preschool for development.
 
^^
Hahaha Shepard, I got a good laugh out of that one...I am a planner, yes, but I don't work at the BRA. Nice try though!

Rifleman, I bet a lot of the folks at the BRA have masters degrees, some even from *gasp* Harvard!
 
I like that selection for the archBOSTON (re)development board. That's a good mix of understanding laws, design, devolopment, neighborhoods, and the tenacity of a Ned who actually brought a lot of good to the table when he decided to add his two cents. Although he was a little too tied to one neighborhood only, and that is one major flaw with the city officials. They are too tied to a neighborhood, and not the city at large.
 
I'd put czsz, Briv & Van on that list as well. Maybe Ron too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top