Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown

Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Don't get stuck on that small "height charade" played out for political cover. That concession is a political breadcrumb.

I can't answer your question as to why towers are capped at certain heights or why there aren't more of them. I am saying the decision for what gets built in Boston is complex, made in private, and seemingly more under the influence of politics, connections, favors, financing, abutters lawsuits, etc. and significantly less so from NIMBYism, YIMBYism (unions, NAIOP, Chamber, etc.) or the goals of Master Plans.

You may disagree, that's fine. Again, I wish I was wrong.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Why wouldn't the BRA simply use current zoning laws as an excuse not to allow variances? Why do they need a different scapegoat? At least if they used zoning laws as an excuse, then they wouldn't need to create a class of people who despise them. I know obviously this depends on what is being proposed for where, but hell, it seems 9/10'ths of everything built needs a variance from one zoning law of the other. Or am i just not understanding how the process works?
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Sicilian, you've made overwhelmingly interesting/informative/helpful posts since you started posting a few weeks ago, but this BRA argument stretches the limits of believability.

I can't answer your question as to why towers are capped at certain heights or why there aren't more of them. I am saying the decision for what gets built in Boston is complex, made in private, and seemingly more under the influence of politics, connections, favors, financing, abutters lawsuits, etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a second shooter on the grassy knoll that has kept anything over 60 stories from getting built in Boston . . .
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

To simplify what I've said... In my opinion, what gets built or not built is based largely on private negotiations between each developer and the BRA, not NIMBYism.

Again, Kingston Street is not lorded over by NIMBYs, nor is the Financial District, nor is the Seaport (post-linkage fiasco in the early 21st century). Yet each of those district have been dominated by, in my opinion, substandard urban plans with disproportionate block sizes to height, mediocre architecture and substandard materials. A number of posters continues to blame outcomes on NIMBYs that simply don't exist in substantial numbers or power.

The BRA forms "Impact Advisory Groups" for each large project to solicit input from the community. In many cases, the input of the IAG's is completely disregarded -- this simple fact contradicts what most posters suggest on this board regarding the power of community members. If people want to dispute this, I'll direct you to a few notable instances that were reported in the papers.

As for the grassy knoll, I stated in my comments that the outcome of planning and approvals is often a mystery to me. I am not clear why the BRA hands out approvals for land uses and densities that vary from existing zoning, often adding hundreds of $millions in new value for the property owner, yet does not demand a world-class standard in architecture, proper phasing of uses in mixed-use projects, identification of parcels for mindblowing towers, or master plans that support a finer grain of street layouts than the megablocks.

I want to repeat what I said earlier that I am sure there are top notch planners at the BRA who are frustrated with the system. My comments are pretty harsh about planning and architecture, but I believe many are trying to improve the process.
 
Last edited:
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Maybe we're only differing on semantics then.

Whether someone is saying no to a style of architecture (contemporary in the Back Bay); a level of density (too high at the Harbor); a use (not enough affordable units in Chinatown); or a perceived externality (shadows on the common) . . . it's all the same Not In My BackYard attitude. And it all ends up with a dumbed down Apple Store; a truncated Aquarium Garage proposal; a value engineered 120 Kingston; or a landscraper where Shreve Crump & Lowe once stood.

So, for example, we're not talking about a situation where Chiofaro secretly wants a shorter building on the harbor. Where talking about a situation where Chiofaro knows he'll end up with a shorter building on the harbor because neighbors will complain.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

AFL is dead on... PS, the heights in theater district corridor (around 24-28 stories) have been preordained by the BRA. They have made an internal decision to keep structures under that cap. But again, the reason is that height always goes over like a lead balloon in this town, so the folks at city hall made a preemptive decision to keep things modest.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Exactly. As I said, it doesn't matter whether NIMBYs have influence in one particular instance. Their generic complaints have been mainstreamed into the planning process.

That's the best explanation for the "mystery" of why the BRA always makes demands congruent to NIMBY desires - unless the BRA is just some grand NIMBY junta council itself.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

I think you missed my point, but don't disagree that such prejudgements probably play a part in the BRA decision-making process.

czsz said:
...the BRA always makes demands congruent to NIMBY desires.
Click to expand...

No disrespect czsz, but I'll repeat once again that this is a ridiculous assertion. I can understand why people believe this, especially based on what the papers publish, but it's not so.

We can leave it at that.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

I don't think you really understand what I've been saying, so I'm going to state it one more time, in as simple and clear terms as possible. Our disagreement is not over whether NIMBY groups have significant influence over individual development decisions. I credit you for providing a sophisticated analysis of the BRA decision-making process. I agree that NIMBY groups do not have significant influence in many instances, such as in the Seaport. But you left unresolved the answer to why the BRA would demand things like low heights and more open space.

I think I've addressed this and tidied up the logic of your argument. Again: why does the BRA make demands congruent (i.e. similar) to those NIMBYs would advocate, like low heights and open space? You said it's a mystery. I said it's likely because NIMBYs' frequent presence on the development scene has resulted in the general rules for development bending in their favor, even if a specific group lacks influence in a specific case, or even if they do not in most cases. It's simply convenient for the BRA to incorporate demands that tend to crop up time and time again, whether because they are sometimes made by powerful NIMBY groups (such as in the Back Bay) or because they are convenient cover for whatever other concessions the BRA is getting that are more aligned with its rational self-interests. You seem to believe this might be part of the answer, but don't offer anything else.

The forum can judge for itself.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Sicilian, do you work in development? What makes you so sure of this assertion? I work in development and have dealt with the BRA personally on some of these very projects. (Not trying to be presumptuous, just wondering what you base this information upon)

You're right, the BRA often disregards what the CAC, IAGs say. Those are mainly window dressing. The city only listens to the activist groups when the roaring din is too loud to ignore and threatens to give the mayor bad press. The BRA is the mayor's sacrificial lamb. It is there to be the bag man and take the fall for anything that goes wrong. The problem is that an unhealthy planning mindset has overtaken that agency that is very much influenced by the NIMBYs who crow mindlessly ever time a project is announced.
 
Last edited:
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

^sidewalks
I don't work in development, nor am I connected professionally in any way with architecture or planning.

But I have attended ten years of public meetings, and have a fair in depth knowledge of the process. I do not see myself as NIMBY because I do not have a knee-jerk response to any project, nor do I have pre-conceived objections to projects, density, height, etc.

In my view, there is far more highly opinionated and ill-conceived YIMBYism among members of the Archboston board (e.g. support for anything, wherever, whatever) than there is highly opinionated crowing about height or density in our public meetings. If anything, there has been an intense interest in past Master Planning efforts by the BRA, but Master Planning has not proven to bear fruit so there really is widespread disillusionment.

sidewalks, you and I both see the system as broken. We just disagree as to why it is the way it is.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

there is far more highly opinionated and ill-conceived YIMBYism among members of the Archboston board (e.g. support for anything, wherever, whatever)
Click to expand...

I would challenge you to accurately name one member of this board who stands for this position.

This board has a better record of consistently standing up for historic preservation than many established neighborhood groups. No one here is excited to see 19th century buildings torn down for modern replacements, or attractive vistas ruined by unsightly additions.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

^czsz
It is not a condemnation. I'm here because I really enjoy reading the insights of members, particularly dedicated members.

But I think it's fair to say that projects are fairly generally considered from the point of view of a thumbs up or down, predominately based on the project's architecture.

There are not significant discussions of context, neighboring projects, impact on long-term planning goals for a particular area, public investment and infrastructure that the project depends on, relationship to existing fabric, etc.

Don't interpret the above to mean that I support short brick buildings in neighborhoods with short brick buildings. I don't. But context matters in the careful evaluation of a project.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

I think the BRA officials who reviewed this project may be fairly considered to be idiots.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

There are not significant discussions of context, neighboring projects, impact on long-term planning goals for a particular area, public investment and infrastructure that the project depends on, relationship to existing fabric, etc.
Click to expand...

For one, a lot of people here are operating with background assumptions that are rooted in analyses of these very things. For example, that density is good for the environment, twenty four hour neighborhoods are safer and more interesting, concerns about traffic are usually obviated by transit use among urbanites, blank walls are uninviting for pedestrians, wide footprints lead to less varied and usable streetscapes, etc. All of these consider an individual project's impact on its neighborhood. Because these tend to be assumptions held in common and because they recur as the background for criticisms so frequently, we don't need to reproduce a Jane Jacobs style analysis each time a project is analyzed.

But much of the discussion is really about context. Architecture is rarely discussed in isolation to its surroundings here. Look at the W hotel thread - it begins with hopes the hotel will bring more life to a vital corner of the Theatre District. It is now engaged in an analysis of the hotel's relationship to the street and whether it has achieved this in practice.

Part of the reason you see an emphasis on aesthetics is because there's an understanding of the fact that aesthetics also impact the way future development is perceived. An ugly building that gets built in one part of the city because the regulatory process results in it being designed by committee becomes the justification for opposing more buildings elsewhere. A vicious "development is bad" cycle develops that results in the self-fulfilling prophecy of more and more hideous buildings going up as the result of various concessions, resulting in activists saying "I told you so".

But I think, beyond this, there actually is a lot of discussion of public cost and long term planning. There were endless debates over financing for Columbus Center, for example, and the members of this forum appear far more cognizant of how changes along the Greenway affect the functionality of the entire corridor. And part of a discussion of long term planning is also a critique of projects that set a bad precedent or low bar for the future. Finally, the forum has a really active interest in supporting infrastructure, as evidenced in the lively discussion in the transportation section.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

czsz & Sicilian,

Despite an an obvious undercurrent of tension, you both have managed to keep this conversation at a very high level, in this thread and the others.

Thanks for that. :)
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

czsz, sidewalks (and Statler) -

I'm backing away from my comment about this board's widespread YIMBYism, earlier this afternoon. That was incorrect, uncalled for.

I'm feeling really grouchy today, and was increasingly disatisfied with the assertion that NIMBYism plays more of a factor than money, politics, financing, connections, mediocre ideals and the problems related to the siphoning of profit from projects through the flipping of project approvals before a shovel is put in the ground.

I believe connected developers are doing quite well in this town, and the results are very often substandard. As for the lack of towers, my belief is that factors related to politics, financing, instability in zoning and planning, insider trading, egos, etc. play the most significant role -- not significantly due to residents' opposition to towers.

There is a great Renzo Piano rumor/story floating around about his experience with one tower project (not the museum). I hope one day it makes its way over to this board.

czsz, your points are very well put. I intend to look over more threads, learn from them.

Thanks all.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

There is a great Renzo Piano rumor/story floating around about his experience with one tower project (not the museum). I hope one day it makes its way over to this board.
Click to expand...

Don't tease us! Out with it!
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

happen to drive by today
031-11.jpg
032-11.jpg
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Wow, that is a lot more impressive a building than I previously thought...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top