Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
sidewalks,
The process you describe is probably a near-perfect representation of what goes on in most Boston neighborhoods, having a significant residential population to whom the Mayor is accountable.
I live in the Seaport District (specifically Fort Point) and even though there is a small residential community, I have witnessed much of what you say.
Let me add a few observations that are unaccounted for in your insightful post, possibly specific to the Seaport, and perhaps you can understand my perspective.
1) The rezoning of the Seaport maximized height and density to more or less fill the FAA envelope. Height was not significantly reduced (except on a few Fan Pier buildings at water's edge). The zoning is a district of megablocks with most stumps topping off at the 300' mark. Neither the zoning or the approvals would seem to represent a "NIMBY" dream.
2) The BRA intentionally uses the rezoning process to increase its own power. This better explains your observation at Maverick Square. The rezoning of an area to support 1-story structures is not (in my view) a capitulation to area activists. In Fort Point, zoning is routinely used a tool to force developers to the table at City Hall for constant negotiation. If they are zoned for 1 story, they have to cough up more and more and more to get each additional story.
3) You seem to be involved in development in a highly responsible way. We've had our share of outstanding developers over the past decade. I've named a few -- Beacon Capital Partners (Channel Center) and Berkeley (FP3, Flour, Sportello,etc).
But we've seen a stream of developers arrive with one clear intention: purchase properties, secure variances from existing zoning, flip the property to capitalize on the value of the unbuilt pre-approved project, and skip town. In one instance, after a year of ridiculous planning meetings to secure community approval, the City approved a variance for a rooftop addition conditional on the building's conversion residential use. Within months of its approval, the owner/developer flipped the building and pre-approved development rights, for a hefty premium. The new owner, having paid a premium for the rooftop rights, complained that the project could not be residential. Rather than moving forward with the existing building for office space, the developer went back to the BRA and requested that the variance be approved office space. The BRA agreed. Those buildings were vacated of tenants two years ago, and have sat vacant since. The district is now approaching 90% office space.
In our public meetings, a BRA representative simply carries the developer's water at every meeting, standing next to the developer at the front of the room and responding to nearly every question, "The Boston Redevelopment Authority supports economically viable projects. Let me repeat, the Boston Redevelopment Authority supports economically viable projects." That is the answer repeated over and over to residents (and NIMBYs) in the room.
In other public meetings, a BRA representative (for whom I have respect) often repeats, "This is private property. The BRA has no leverage." At the same time, the BRA is deeply involved with providing significant variances for new construction. Yet they claim to the community that they have limited leverage to call for improvements to the architecture, etc.
These points explain why there is widespread disillusionment in the District.
4) Massport property around Fish Pier is not subject to the City process (as a State authority Massport is fairly well distanced from NIMBYism). Yet Massport's developments throughout the Seaport are collectively, IMO, a failure that will not resolve itself over generations. The process you have described does not explain why Massport's urban plan is basically the same as the Seaport -- vast megablocks separated by vast public spaces. The pedestrian experience is limited to enjoying loading docks and large plate glass retail windows.
To conclude, I think you and I are on the same page with much of what has been stated. Our City does not have a Robert Moses, nor does it have a Jane Jacobs. There is a stunning lack of visionary ideals expressed on the street, even though I'm sure great projects are well known in board rooms and planning departments around town.
I have to attribute the lack of vision to a failure of leadership.