Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown

Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

The BRA doesn't build buildings, so I don't understand the question. The Mass. Turnpike Authority built the Zakim Bridge. I consider Rowes Wharf and International Place (especially combined in one view from the harbor) pretty iconic.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

120k1rk0.jpg
:(
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

that would have been a fantastic project...oh stupid nimbys
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Ron Newman said:
The BRA doesn't build buildings, so I don't understand the question. The Mass. Turnpike Authority built the Zakim Bridge. I consider Rowes Wharf and International Place (especially combined in one view from the harbor) pretty iconic.
Click to expand...

My iconic reference was referring back to this article.

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.
Click to expand...

This quote still makes my ears (err...eyes?) bleed.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

el raval said:
Does the Zakim bridge count? That's about your only winner after the Hancock tower.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the Hancock but the bridge was all Mass Highway or MTA or whoever.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

palindrome said:
My iconic reference was referring back to this article.



This quote still makes my ears (err...eyes?) bleed.
Click to expand...

Hello ArchBoston community. I've been following this site for quite some time. I couldn't help but to register and post after reading that quote, as it does explain quite a bit about the regressive thinking in this city. That just blew me away. Will Boston ever come close to its full potential?
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

^ Undoubtedly this is how the NIMBYs see themselves. THough unlike the Spartans, they can't stomach fighting in the shade.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Once again, the invisible army of NIMBY's have power over the BRA, BRA Board and Boston Civic Design Commission, etc.

What a joke!

I especially love how Globe and Herald articles which quote a single neighborhood representative of some community group are quoted on this board to suggest that project approvals hinge on a quoted NIMBY's point of view. You guys are great for the BRA because it lets them off the hook.

FYI ALL projects are pre-approved in private meetings at City Hall, and height is typically proposed at 1/4 to 1/3 more than the developer intends to build, then that percentage cut back to be "responsive" to the community. It happens across every neighborhood whether or not a NIMBY is quoted.

Aside from some of the Back Bay and Beacon Hill associations (with lawyers and pitbulls) the notion that Kingston street is lorded by powerful NIMBIES is laughable. But it's convenient.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Okay, but, if your conspiratorial anecdote is true, the fact that they're preemptively cutting back to appease potential NIMBYs is still a testament to NIMBYs' influence on decisions, no? Otherwise why bother with the whole charade?
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Aside from powerful neighborhoods like Back Bay and Beacon Hill, the types of community appeasements I suggested, for example cutting back on height as a matter of course, have little to do with the zoning, approvals and outcome. The goal of those appeasements is A) political cover and B) providing the BRA with a convenient foil as they exact "benefits" from the developers.

I hope I'm making sense with what I've said above.

I think there is a high level of expertise on this board, but a troubling naivete regarding the BRA and how it operates. NIMBYs, especially those quoted in the papers, provide a very convenient distraction.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Okay, fine, but you've substituted naivite over the BRA's operations for naivite over its motives. Why would the BRA care, independent of NIMBYs' reactions, why a building is taller or shorter?
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

^czsz

Let me preface my statements by saying I have no professional interest, but I have diligently attended planning meetings and observed how the process works enough to make some observations which I think can be proven.

In Boston, the decision on what gets built and where is based on factors far beyond what the community activists want or what the various "Master Plans" suggest.

One factor is obviously the political relationship between a developer and City Hall. The disparities in approvals based on a developers history, pro or con, I think are widely known. As I've mentioned before, there are a handful of developers in Boston that somehow get approvals for a lions share of projects.

There are also a legion of connected insiders in the approval process. I am aware of three ex-BRA directors who have made themselves available for hire as consultants to work with the BRA to gain approvals. There are legions of connected insiders who know the permitting process, etc. The process is set up so an outsider has to negotiate a million minefields other than NIMBY's to get anything approved.

The exaction of benefits from developers also plays a huge role in what gets approved. There are onsite benefits, offsite benefits, and (I believe) the BRA's own budget is derived from payments made based on what gets approved.

The community process does not, in my view, play a major role in the outcome with respect to architecture, density or design. But the community process does take time, and any delays certainly take a toll on each project.

Lastly, the BRA is responsible for creating instability in the process. The BRA sees zoning as a baseline for negotiation, not an envelope or guideline, so neither the developers or residents have a clear understanding of what the goals are for their immediate area. Worse yet, over the past decade, the BRA began using a PDA (Planned Development Area) to spot zoning large parcels. This takes the large project out of the context of its surroundings.

I hope others chip in in this subject, because others know more than I do. But I do know that NIMBY's are more often a distraction than a cause for significant change.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

I'll add more, since my post above hasn't been updated, that there are probably plenty of planners at the BRA who are equally frustrated by the process, not from community input (so-called. NIMBYism) but more so from the top-level political equations that trump the fate of Master Plans, existing zoning, and extraordinary development proposals.

Apologies if I've gotton the Kingston thread off track... just wanted to point out that Kingston Street is not lorded over by powerful NIMBYs, nor is the desolate Seaport.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Let me try one more time - yes, it's clear that powerful NIMBY groups probably aren't the main actors in Kingston St. or at the Seaport, and that the BRA probably exercises just as much if not more control than NIMBY groups do even where they're powerful.

BUT - why are the concessions wrested from developers always congruous with what NIMBYs are demanding? If NIMBY voices did not matter, the BRA would surely be extracting more for itself (budgetary contributions, kickbacks, whatever) in exchange for height or whatever other feature the developer wanted, rather than demanding height be reduced. Even if height reduction is just political cover for the BRA's other extractions, there's a reason they have to engage in that form of cover, specifically. Yes, you can look at it as "NIMBY groups provide convenient excuses," but that does not contradict the thesis that NIMBY demands exercise influence over BRA decision-making - because, if such groups did not exist, either excuses could not be made, or concessions would look very different.

I don't think the absence of very powerful NIMBY groups in parts of the city exclude this. It could be that NIMBY pressure elsewhere has simply made it the BRA's modus operandi to demand shorter buildings and more open space. In that case, it's not simply a matter of Seaport NIMBYs controlling the development process, which I agree is an absurd idea, but a culture of NIMBYism citywide powerful enough that the BRA's standard practices accommodate what, say, Back Bay NIMBYs might demand even when the BRA is reviewing Seaport proposals.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

What goes on privately between developers and the BRA is far more of a factor in what gets developed than the input from the community in public meetings.

In fact, the level of unresponsiveness to community input by the BRA has become so evident it was one of the top campaign issues in the last Mayoral election. If you think forming a YIMBY group will make a positive difference, it is more likely your group will be used for better or worse during the process to get what the BRA needs to get.

I won't discount your point that Boston has a culture that is attuned to smaller scale projects, and that may play a factor in districts like the Seaport. But the Seaport was pretty much maxed out in terms of density and height -- the area transit infrastructure (Silver Line, etc.) may actually be stressed heavily when the area is fully built out.

There are always a contingent anti-development (NIMBY) and pro-development (YIMBY?) folks in the process, and quite often YIMBYs represent a majority at important public meetings. In the YIMBY camp, the construction unions have a strong turnout when it counts, as do the Boston Chamber of Commerce, SEIU, NAIOP, etc.

Personally, I have little interest in being a NIMBY or YIMBY. I don't think Boston benefits by either blind opposition to towers or blind support for them. In my view, the BRA should develop a Master Plan for an area that is well suited to success of the development community, but moderated (through zoning) to ensure mix of uses and variety of building forms other than simply whatever the current market demands -- that is supposedly why the BRA exists to hand out variances in the first place.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

^czsz
... and I do understand your question -- if the BRA is not listening to NIMBYs, why are they not building towers everywhere? I think that's a great question, but the answer does not rest with the NIMBY's who show up at meetings or talk the Globe or Herald.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Where else would the answer lie?

Maybe we'd find out if there were a YIMBY group that could provide the BRA with a different form of "cover".

And if that's the case, wouldn't outside pressure from NIMBYs / YIMBYs not only be "cover," but, really, the deciding factor? If their ability to provide "cover" puts the BRA's decision-making process over the edge for one or another choice, all other pressures being equal, they may have more effective power than you make out.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Somewhere in an earlier e-mail I stated that tower height is always proposed at some percentage more than the developer expects to build (i.e. 130%) and then cut down during the public process to what the developer originally planned (20% lopped off in one meeting, 10% lopped off in a second).

As I stated earlier, I believe those calculations are all pre-determined in private meetings between the developer and BRA well prior to the public process, and yes -- the charade is for political cover.

I did not suggest that the BRA was the beneficiary of the political cover.

As for the impact of NIMBY's, YIMBY's, Kressels and Vivien Li types, that's all a laughable fiction, with some exceptions in a small number of exceptionally powerful neighborhoods.

I wish I was wrong.
 
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown

Look, what do you suggest it's all for then? The height charade, for example? A distraction from what they're really doing in the negotiations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top