Suffolk University Moving off Beacon Hill for Downtown

BostonUrbEx

BostonUrbEx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
127
Mayor Menino praises possible Suffolk move off Beacon Hill
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Updated 11 hours ago

Suffolk University is floating plans to move most of its campus from Beacon Hill to Downtown Crossing, and the idea is getting high marks from Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

?The plan has merit,? said Menino, who killed a proposal for a 22-story dormitory on Somerset Street in 2006 due to Beacon Hill neighborhood opposition. ?I believe Beacon Hill residents will accept it with open arms, because there?s always been tension between the neighborhood and the university.?

Under the concept being promoted by John Nucci, the school?s vice president for external affairs, the university would sell three of its Beacon Hill properties and purchase several buildings on Tremont Street and others closer to their new dormitories on West and lower Washington streets. If approved, Suffolk?s scattered real estate would be swapped for a contiguous campus.

In exchange for selling some of its properties, Beacon Hill residents would be asked to approve upping the school?s 5,000 student enrollment cap. The neighborhood supported Suffolk?s bid to construct classroom space on Somerset Street instead of the dorm, in exchange for enrollment limits.

Nucci said the school is committed to reducing its impact on Beacon Hill. He declined to provide specifics.

?We are always trying to identify opportunities for expansion to meet the needs of our students and the city, but only in areas spelled out in our master plan and supported by the community,? he said.

Robert Whitney, a member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association, who has met with Nucci, said the neighborhood will consider raising the cap in a trade for the school moving off the hill.

?Suffolk wants relief from the cap, because they say it?s had an adverse affect on their ability to raise financing for expansion,? he said. ?We would be willing to do it, but we want a say in what happens to those buildings and how the school would handle student demand for apartments on Beacon Hill.?
Click to expand...

http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...con_hill/srvc=business&position=recent_bullet

This goes in conjunction with the "Suffolk eyes blighted Filene?s block for university housing" article (which was also posted in the Filene's thread):
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1287156

And again, a map of Suffolk properties and space rented as it stands today:
http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...34766256038742.000478aa21cc370f83a34&t=h&z=15
 
Huh, how does this square with them constructing a brand new art building on Somerset Street -- on Beacon Hill?

I hope the C. Walsh Theatre can be kept as a performance space, and rented out more often to independent theatre groups.
 
Ron Newman said:
Huh, how does this square with them constructing a brand new art building on Somerset Street -- on Beacon Hill?

I hope the C. Walsh Theatre can be kept as a performance space, and rented out more often to independent theatre groups.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing they'd be selling off 3 of their oldest facilities, the Fenton Building, and the Donahue and Archer Buildings (which include the C Walsh Theatre) behind the State House. I don't think they'd be getting rid of the properties along Somerset/Ashburton, not to mention there's no NIMBY residences in that area, but there are behind the State House.
 
So now NIMBYs can dictate how many students you can have, which is a sizable portion of how you how to run your business. Way too much entitlement on that one.
 
Actually, community/NIMBY inspired enrolment caps can be good for a university. Northeastern has frozen its freshman class at 2800 students for 20 years now. As the school's popularity has skyrocketed in the past decade, NU has become much more selective. Its freshman class profile is now slightly higher than that of BU. Were it not for the enrolment cap, NU might have been tempted to increase enrolment to maximize revenue at the expense of student quality.

Given Suffolk's very mediocre freshman student profile, I would not think that they would be looking to increase undergraduate enrolment.
 
Last edited:
Just curious -- what is the primary focus of Suffolk's undergraduate college (not including the recently acquired New England School of Art and Design)? What programs there would cause a prospective student to choose it over UMass-Boston, BC, BU, or NU?
 
Suffolk undergrad is Arts and Science and Management. Suffolk is a safety school for students aiming for NU, BU and BC and who desperately want to go to college in Boston. As for UMass-Boston, Suffolk is about the same price as UMass out of state. No Massachusetts resident would choose Suffolk over UMass Boston in my opinion.
 
All I know about it is the law school. Only reason I know any people go there. A friend did graduate with some kind of computer science degree too.....
 
Aren't they also known for their business program? Granted that BC, BU, and, NU (I don't know about UMB) have better business programs so it probably isn't much of a factor.
 
There's one thing that I'm wondering about...if Suffolk would be moving from Beacon Hill to DTX, why would this Beacon Hill neighborhood association have any right to do anything with these enrollment caps? Once the university leaves the neighborhood, shouldn't they forfeit all right to any restraints they can place on developments, enrollment, etc.?

Overall I see this as a humongous win and the right move for all parties involved.
 
To most MINBY's, their backyard includes any place in the city and beyond. The City of Montreal has actually passed a bylaw that defines how close to a project a NIMBY must live in order to complain about it, and they don't have any anti-shadow laws either!
 
Haha very true!

Wow, it sounds like Montreal has their shit figured out. Wish we could do something like that. I wonder what that would mean for projects like the Aquarium tower & Congress Street garage tower.
 
Yes, but Montreal is notorious here in Canada for being very difficult to build in. Check out some of the other websites, like SkyscraperCity, and you'll see that they often complain about the same things we do in Boston (tall projects chopped down in size, value engineering, NIMBYism, etc). Given the relative importance of Montr?al to the Canadian economy they've got a better track record as of late, but Boston stands a greater chance of getting some height put up than Montr?al.

So, I know it always looks like the grass is greener, but other cities definitely suffer from similar issues.
 
Every city suffers from these issues. It's a question of their severity and extent. It's clear from that law alone that NIMBYism legally cannot be as restrictive as it is in Boston. Montreal's complaints are probably made by comparison to some other, even less NIMBYfied place.

On another note, Montreal may not have much in the way of "height", but a lot of the infill that gets built there is very high quality. Same with Chicago. I wonder what these cities are doing to encourage the use of good materials and good design that Boston isn't.
 
I would fear for our city if only neighbors could choose what goes up in the city. The Back Bay would be bordered with railyards, if this was the way.
 
Just because there isn't a law doesn't mean Montreal doesn't get away with shade disputes. Even Toronto (a much more development friendly), which has no shade law, has had a hard time getting a building over the 1,000-foot threshold due to concerns about shading. The Montreal NIMBYs can be just as virulently anti-development as their Bostonian counterparts. The difference, however, is that Montrealers take a lot more pride in their city than Bostonians and, living on an island, realize the need to maximize space rather than constantly suburbanize the city. Therefore, as noted, where development occurs it is generally of a higher calibre since bad developments will face a harder time. Furthermore, Quebec is a lot more insular so the developers tend to be local which then plays into the civic pride, both of the abstract as well as built surroundings since profit, while important, isn't the only focus when developing in Montreal. It's the whole joie de vivre, work-to-live mentality that is fairly unique to North America.

So, there's a lot of reasons why Montreal development tends to be nicer, but to say that there's less NIMBYism is simply false. They also have a law which says that no building can be taller than the cross on Mount Royal. Granted, Montreal isn't going to be needing a building taller than 650 ft anytime soon, the fact that they can't is essentially the same thing as no shadows on the Common; both limit the height to which buildings can be built.
 
czsz said:
Every city suffers from these issues. It's a question of their severity and extent. It's clear from that law alone that NIMBYism legally cannot be as restrictive as it is in Boston. Montreal's complaints are probably made by comparison to some other, even less NIMBYfied place.

On another note, Montreal may not have much in the way of "height", but a lot of the infill that gets built there is very high quality. Same with Chicago. I wonder what these cities are doing to encourage the use of good materials and good design that Boston isn't.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see examples of the high quality of Montreal's infill, though Chicago's reputation in this regard is overblown. Quality in Chicago spans the spectrum.
 
 
Last edited:
Wow, you managed to pretty much sink any hopes I have for Boston....
 
Erik, I'm not sure any of the factors you listed aren't common to both Montreal and Boston. Local developers? There are plenty here, but they don't get a pass. Less space to grow? Boston proper isn't an island, but it's hemmed in by water (and less growth-friendly towns) on all sides. And locals take insane pride in the city, though in its status quo rather than its growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top