Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown
- Thread starter PaulC
- Start date
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Sicilian,
I can see where you are coming from and believe me, I totally appreciate your position. Nonetheless I think you are mostly incorrect, because the press reports are seldom accurate and the consensus among neighborhood activists is often times self affirming even if misguided.
Let me explain a bit of how I see the game that plays out between the mayor, the BRA, neighborhood activist groups and developers.
The process started years ago with a series of planning and zoning initiatives. Most neighborhoods have been rezoned during Menino's administration. At the time he directed the BRA to go out into the neighborhoods and solicit community input. That input was meant to guide the development on those neighborhoods. These were mainly feel good meetings. The activists who came out had the very best of intentions, but they also represented a general aversion to density and height. (We don't want to "Manhattanize" Boston, lest anyone forget) And because Menino is a neighborhood guy, he directed the BRA to give the rubber stamp to most of the activists requests. The problem is that most of these zoning plans are absurdly low density. (My favorite example is the area surrounding Maverick Station where a Floor Area Ratio of 1 predominates- which basically envisions a single story building covering the entire parcel). The planners at the BRA knew this made no sense, but what were they to do? they had their marching orders from Mr. Neighborhood, so they enacted the plans.
The problem in this process is what happens next. At this stage, the activists feel they've ensured the future of their neighborhood, but all they've done is spent years drafting a feel good plan that makes no sense and will serve only as a vague benchmark. In practice it becomes a toothless fantasy.
The next step is when a developer proposes a project. He buys a parcel or gains control over it through an option and conceives a project that far outstrips existing zoning. The BRA looks at the plan and says, 'that's good'. It doesn't conform to zoning, but they know the zoning makes no sense and the mayor only agreed to the zoning to appease the neighborhoods. When the plan is unveiled in public, the community is outraged. "We spent years drafting a comprehensive zoning plan! What the hell is this," they crow.
The mayor sees the article in the globe with all the community outrage and tells the BRA to instruct the developer to make concessions- cut the height, change the design- just make the neighbors happy and keep the issue out of the press. If the developer has the time and money he might be able to wear the neighborhood down. Just keep attending those meetings, make small concessions and eventually the articles end and the only people who attend the meetings are rabid nimbys- many of whom would oppose the fourth of July and Christmas, so nobody pays attention to them anyway.
But in the background there are thoughtful people like you who feel the BRA has ignored them and hoodwinked the neighborhood. They feel that the developer got a pass because he knew someone or threw contributions at the mayor. Mostly that's not true. Mostly, the developer is on an island. What we generally hear is, "fix the problem yourself. If the neighborhood supports the project then we'll let you move ahead." That's not to mention the 'community benefits' when the activists are allowed to shakedown the developer in a process of systematic extortion.
Very little in the process has to do with what makes a good project. The mayor just wants to avoid bad press. In the case of 120 Kingston he could have supported a beautiful project and preserved a fantastic building, but some transient neighbor in the leather district who (demonstrably) hasn't the first clue about good urban planning, design or preservation, got a few quotes in the Globe and city hall heads for the bunkers. The process is deeply flawed, but adhering to current zoning isn't the answer.
Sicilian,
I can see where you are coming from and believe me, I totally appreciate your position. Nonetheless I think you are mostly incorrect, because the press reports are seldom accurate and the consensus among neighborhood activists is often times self affirming even if misguided.
Let me explain a bit of how I see the game that plays out between the mayor, the BRA, neighborhood activist groups and developers.
The process started years ago with a series of planning and zoning initiatives. Most neighborhoods have been rezoned during Menino's administration. At the time he directed the BRA to go out into the neighborhoods and solicit community input. That input was meant to guide the development on those neighborhoods. These were mainly feel good meetings. The activists who came out had the very best of intentions, but they also represented a general aversion to density and height. (We don't want to "Manhattanize" Boston, lest anyone forget) And because Menino is a neighborhood guy, he directed the BRA to give the rubber stamp to most of the activists requests. The problem is that most of these zoning plans are absurdly low density. (My favorite example is the area surrounding Maverick Station where a Floor Area Ratio of 1 predominates- which basically envisions a single story building covering the entire parcel). The planners at the BRA knew this made no sense, but what were they to do? they had their marching orders from Mr. Neighborhood, so they enacted the plans.
The problem in this process is what happens next. At this stage, the activists feel they've ensured the future of their neighborhood, but all they've done is spent years drafting a feel good plan that makes no sense and will serve only as a vague benchmark. In practice it becomes a toothless fantasy.
The next step is when a developer proposes a project. He buys a parcel or gains control over it through an option and conceives a project that far outstrips existing zoning. The BRA looks at the plan and says, 'that's good'. It doesn't conform to zoning, but they know the zoning makes no sense and the mayor only agreed to the zoning to appease the neighborhoods. When the plan is unveiled in public, the community is outraged. "We spent years drafting a comprehensive zoning plan! What the hell is this," they crow.
The mayor sees the article in the globe with all the community outrage and tells the BRA to instruct the developer to make concessions- cut the height, change the design- just make the neighbors happy and keep the issue out of the press. If the developer has the time and money he might be able to wear the neighborhood down. Just keep attending those meetings, make small concessions and eventually the articles end and the only people who attend the meetings are rabid nimbys- many of whom would oppose the fourth of July and Christmas, so nobody pays attention to them anyway.
But in the background there are thoughtful people like you who feel the BRA has ignored them and hoodwinked the neighborhood. They feel that the developer got a pass because he knew someone or threw contributions at the mayor. Mostly that's not true. Mostly, the developer is on an island. What we generally hear is, "fix the problem yourself. If the neighborhood supports the project then we'll let you move ahead." That's not to mention the 'community benefits' when the activists are allowed to shakedown the developer in a process of systematic extortion.
Very little in the process has to do with what makes a good project. The mayor just wants to avoid bad press. In the case of 120 Kingston he could have supported a beautiful project and preserved a fantastic building, but some transient neighbor in the leather district who (demonstrably) hasn't the first clue about good urban planning, design or preservation, got a few quotes in the Globe and city hall heads for the bunkers. The process is deeply flawed, but adhering to current zoning isn't the answer.
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.
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.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 108
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
I have always liked this building. The facade has a lot of visual texture. Even in its dilapitated state its very appealing, think what a sprucing up would look like. They definitely don't build em like this anymore. IMO the BRA blew it again when they allowed the facedomy proposal to be scrapped as a matter of compromise. If the new building gets built this corner of the city will be quite a bit less interesting.
happen to drive by today
I have always liked this building. The facade has a lot of visual texture. Even in its dilapitated state its very appealing, think what a sprucing up would look like. They definitely don't build em like this anymore. IMO the BRA blew it again when they allowed the facedomy proposal to be scrapped as a matter of compromise. If the new building gets built this corner of the city will be quite a bit less interesting.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
My guess is that the BRA has adopted a garden "specimen" mentality. "Yup, we've got some examples of that over in the Leather District, so we don't need this one. Its a weed here. Pull it."
Dumb.
My guess is that the BRA has adopted a garden "specimen" mentality. "Yup, we've got some examples of that over in the Leather District, so we don't need this one. Its a weed here. Pull it."
Dumb.
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Sicilian,
Yes, the Seaport is a planning disaster and it is attributable to much of what you say. It is, as you say, a special case. Neither Fan Pier nor the Hynes parcel have much to do with favoritism though. Those parcels were permitted by developers who were on the outside looking in-Pritzker and Hynes (as opposed to the Massport shlock that Fallon built over by the Bank of America Pavillion)
Sicilian,
Yes, the Seaport is a planning disaster and it is attributable to much of what you say. It is, as you say, a special case. Neither Fan Pier nor the Hynes parcel have much to do with favoritism though. Those parcels were permitted by developers who were on the outside looking in-Pritzker and Hynes (as opposed to the Massport shlock that Fallon built over by the Bank of America Pavillion)
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Granted, Pritzker and McCourt were owners when the Seaport was planned. Hynes and Fallon were not involved at that time, and are not responsible for the approvals.
But I'll reiterate that it's hard to comprehend why all Seaport Hotels (Seaport Hotel on Massport land, Westin on Convention Center land, Renaissance Marriott on Massport land) plus Park Lane Apartments (Massport land) plus Fan Pier (Pritzker), were all developed by Fallon or a collaboration of Fallon and others.
I'll leave the door open to Fallon just being aggressive, willing and at the right place at the right time.
I suspect you might agree, though, that two developers with two identical projects are treated very differently at City Hall.
Granted, Pritzker and McCourt were owners when the Seaport was planned. Hynes and Fallon were not involved at that time, and are not responsible for the approvals.
But I'll reiterate that it's hard to comprehend why all Seaport Hotels (Seaport Hotel on Massport land, Westin on Convention Center land, Renaissance Marriott on Massport land) plus Park Lane Apartments (Massport land) plus Fan Pier (Pritzker), were all developed by Fallon or a collaboration of Fallon and others.
I'll leave the door open to Fallon just being aggressive, willing and at the right place at the right time.
I suspect you might agree, though, that two developers with two identical projects are treated very differently at City Hall.
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
It certainly appears that there is an inner circle of developers. Druker, Millennium and Fallon all certainly seem to be dialed in. Not being in that circle I haven't experienced the disparity.
It certainly appears that there is an inner circle of developers. Druker, Millennium and Fallon all certainly seem to be dialed in. Not being in that circle I haven't experienced the disparity.
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
From today's Herald article:
"Developer Ori Ron purchased the Dainty Dot building on Kingston Street in 2006 for $9 million with plans to convert the former manufacturing plant into 200 luxury condominiums. But given the glut of high-end downtown condos that are going unsold, Ron said he plans to do a mix of condos and apartments in the 26-story building. He expects to break ground next summer."
http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...?articleid=1277045&srvc=home&position=emailed
From today's Herald article:
"Developer Ori Ron purchased the Dainty Dot building on Kingston Street in 2006 for $9 million with plans to convert the former manufacturing plant into 200 luxury condominiums. But given the glut of high-end downtown condos that are going unsold, Ron said he plans to do a mix of condos and apartments in the 26-story building. He expects to break ground next summer."
http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...?articleid=1277045&srvc=home&position=emailed
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
This is the last rendering of the proposed building (that I know of):
Adam at Universal Hub attended the Design Commission meeting last September and wrote this:
"Ron and his architect also showed how they had basically made the building more boring to satisfy Boston Redevelopment Authority planners who did not want it becoming an "iconic" structure that would take attention away from the Greenway or other nearby buildings - including museums and similar structures that might one day be built along the Greenway.
Commission member Andrea Leers said the new proposal is a marked improvement but that the building is still probably 100 feet too tall. City zoning for that area calls for buildings no more than 100 feet tall, but the BRA last year granted permission for the much taller building."
I was hoping the economy would stall or put and end to this project
This is the last rendering of the proposed building (that I know of):
Adam at Universal Hub attended the Design Commission meeting last September and wrote this:
"Ron and his architect also showed how they had basically made the building more boring to satisfy Boston Redevelopment Authority planners who did not want it becoming an "iconic" structure that would take attention away from the Greenway or other nearby buildings - including museums and similar structures that might one day be built along the Greenway.
Commission member Andrea Leers said the new proposal is a marked improvement but that the building is still probably 100 feet too tall. City zoning for that area calls for buildings no more than 100 feet tall, but the BRA last year granted permission for the much taller building."
I was hoping the economy would stall or put and end to this project
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Doesn't the new study zone this area for 200 feet? I think the original design that incorporated the existing Dainty Dot facade was excellent.
Doesn't the new study zone this area for 200 feet? I think the original design that incorporated the existing Dainty Dot facade was excellent.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Which is exactly why it won't be built.
Which is exactly why it won't be built.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Was that the design which was criticized as being <gasp> so bold that it would divert attention from the Greenway and thus detract from the exciting strip of new parkland?
I couldn't make this stuff up.
Was that the design which was criticized as being <gasp> so bold that it would divert attention from the Greenway and thus detract from the exciting strip of new parkland?
I couldn't make this stuff up.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 241
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
No I think that design was squashed by Ron when the City made him lop several stories off his building. It became economically infeasible to salvage the Dainty Dot facade.
No I think that design was squashed by Ron when the City made him lop several stories off his building. It became economically infeasible to salvage the Dainty Dot facade.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
^^ Failure has many faces. This whole project is a disgrace.
^^ Failure has many faces. This whole project is a disgrace.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1,664
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
This tower reminds me of The Alexander, a horrendous condo going up near me.
I hate this building with a passion.
This tower reminds me of The Alexander, a horrendous condo going up near me.
I hate this building with a passion.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
I think it looks kinda interesting. If it weren't for the cheap materials and slight lean toward conformity in the tower shaft, it could be something going up in Rotterdam.
It certainly blows away the POS slated to replace the Dainty Dot.
I think it looks kinda interesting. If it weren't for the cheap materials and slight lean toward conformity in the tower shaft, it could be something going up in Rotterdam.
It certainly blows away the POS slated to replace the Dainty Dot.
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Yup, that's busted. I will give it the glass though.
Yup, that's busted. I will give it the glass though.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 241
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Van is that CBT's work?
Van is that CBT's work?