Re: 1350 Boylston
Ill give you that as the capital, Boston has an advantage that NYC doesnt.
Ill give you that as the capital, Boston has an advantage that NYC doesnt.
The Harlo (née Skanska Fenway Project (Burger King))| 1350 Boylston Street | Fenway
- Thread starter stellarfun
- Start date
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
Calm down champ. You've been here for ten posts. People joke about the ridiculous arguments made by some of the neighborhood groups. It's commonplace.
FWIW, this is a booming area and it's pretty obvious that a development like this is fitting sitting in between two major developments. It would be great if for once the neighborhood associations could see that.
Calm down champ. You've been here for ten posts. People joke about the ridiculous arguments made by some of the neighborhood groups. It's commonplace.
FWIW, this is a booming area and it's pretty obvious that a development like this is fitting sitting in between two major developments. It would be great if for once the neighborhood associations could see that.
Last edited:
Re: 1350 Boylston
Like I said before, they could have proposed a building that was 115' from end to end. Can you honestly say a landscraper like that would be better?
Like I said before, they could have proposed a building that was 115' from end to end. Can you honestly say a landscraper like that would be better?
dshoost88
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reaction score
- 2,510
Re: 1350 Boylston
I think to a certain degree the developer is realistically pushing for greater density to satisfy market demand. I'm a big proponent for master plans--hell, I'm in a masters program for city planning as we speak--but as times change the healthiest thing a community can do is adapt.
I remember last year at the community meeting(s) for 1282 Boylston how the same Fenway community members you speak of were left speechless when they learned of the concessions Abbey Group was making for them in the form of a multi-thousand square-foot community center in the building. Speechless. A few of them even told the developer they had no clue what they'd do with so much community space, but that they were grateful for the gesture and would gladly support the project henceforth. Datadyne & BosUrbEx remember the BRA hearing on the project: there was not a single speaker in opposition of that project.
I mention 1282 at length because as I recollect, it ultimately became a bigger project than it was zoned for ( *and yes, I understand it's yet to have a shovel in the ground but just go with it). I'm more than a fanboy--I genuinely have a vested interest in these communities, especially the Fenway neighborhood. More so than members of other Boston neighborhoods (which shall remain nameless), I think the Fenway residents are fully capable of having a productive conversation with and agreeing to what will be in the best interest of all parties involved.
I think to a certain degree the developer is realistically pushing for greater density to satisfy market demand. I'm a big proponent for master plans--hell, I'm in a masters program for city planning as we speak--but as times change the healthiest thing a community can do is adapt.
I remember last year at the community meeting(s) for 1282 Boylston how the same Fenway community members you speak of were left speechless when they learned of the concessions Abbey Group was making for them in the form of a multi-thousand square-foot community center in the building. Speechless. A few of them even told the developer they had no clue what they'd do with so much community space, but that they were grateful for the gesture and would gladly support the project henceforth. Datadyne & BosUrbEx remember the BRA hearing on the project: there was not a single speaker in opposition of that project.
I mention 1282 at length because as I recollect, it ultimately became a bigger project than it was zoned for ( *and yes, I understand it's yet to have a shovel in the ground but just go with it). I'm more than a fanboy--I genuinely have a vested interest in these communities, especially the Fenway neighborhood. More so than members of other Boston neighborhoods (which shall remain nameless), I think the Fenway residents are fully capable of having a productive conversation with and agreeing to what will be in the best interest of all parties involved.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
Was talking about developments in general, not necessarily this specific one.
However, given the development in this neighborhood, and even directly next to this parcel, I'd say that it is slightly ridiculous to challenge this development, yes.
If it were knocking down something of value, not ridiculous. But it's a Burger King.
Was talking about developments in general, not necessarily this specific one.
However, given the development in this neighborhood, and even directly next to this parcel, I'd say that it is slightly ridiculous to challenge this development, yes.
If it were knocking down something of value, not ridiculous. But it's a Burger King.
Last edited:
Re: 1350 Boylston
Honestly, there is no good point to zoning. It's a handful of self-appointed schmucks enforcing their own aesthetic preferences on everyone else in the neighborhood.
What in the world does it achieve? What is the justification for zoning? And furthermore, what is the justification for such anal-retentive limitations and specifications?
I could understand if they brought some broad principles, and had some public interest in mind, that was actually written down and could be debated. For example, that's what the Fenway Urban Village Plan has in it.
But instead, the zoning code is a bunch of context-free numbers for FAR and height, and no reasoning behind them. There is no public good served by that kind of system. Why should we shackle ourselves to some bigoted ideas that some schmucks wrote down 10+ years ago? Who knows what kind of special interests they had in mind.
The way we do zoning is severely flawed. It must end. Planning -- fine. But zoning is too ridiculously low level to adapt and make sense in changing conditions.
Honestly, there is no good point to zoning. It's a handful of self-appointed schmucks enforcing their own aesthetic preferences on everyone else in the neighborhood.
What in the world does it achieve? What is the justification for zoning? And furthermore, what is the justification for such anal-retentive limitations and specifications?
I could understand if they brought some broad principles, and had some public interest in mind, that was actually written down and could be debated. For example, that's what the Fenway Urban Village Plan has in it.
But instead, the zoning code is a bunch of context-free numbers for FAR and height, and no reasoning behind them. There is no public good served by that kind of system. Why should we shackle ourselves to some bigoted ideas that some schmucks wrote down 10+ years ago? Who knows what kind of special interests they had in mind.
The way we do zoning is severely flawed. It must end. Planning -- fine. But zoning is too ridiculously low level to adapt and make sense in changing conditions.
Re: 1350 Boylston
...I miss massmotorist
I'll save them the trouble: it would look like shit. Because that's what has been proven time and again to happen when projects are NIMBYed to death, forcing developers to cut corners on materials to make up the bottom line. Yes they overpaid. The alternative? You get a Burger King on that spot for the foreseeable future.
Disagreeing with something ≠ not understanding it. And they are not ignoring it, they are challenging it. With the development going on in the Fenway right now, rightfully so too. The BRA can always just say no. More importantly, a decade ago who ever thought that the Fenway would see this amazing level of development. Sure it was planned, but it actually happening is incredible. If I lived there I would be head over heels. I'm pumped about fucking Charlesview, essentially a public housing project.
We are talking sides of a street here. In this particular example it's even less relevant, considering the parcel is abutted by a park, which itself is abutted by a parking garage begging to be redeveloped, which in turn is next to no less then three underused properties that could be redeveloped to 8-12 stories to still fulfill the initial "high spine" vision. Besides that, The Point is still going to be higher, by a good five floors. So while yes, the proposed tower does not blend with the immediately adjacent apartment buildings right now, it does blend pretty well with the new development going up in the Fenway, BU, Longwood, Mass Ave, the Pru, and what could be built on the aforementioned parcels.
Skanska redid the Empire State Building, to me that's the credential to end all credentials. And their design looks good, better then what Samuels is putting out IMO. Extort them for more community space. Make them plant some trees in the neighborhood, or fix up the park across the alley. Or hold them to a commitment of using quality materials in the design so the tower doesn't become the next Waterside Place. Work with the developer to reach a solution that benefits everyone. Getting offended because a company that makes money building buildings is trying to make money building a building is counterproductive. I can't think of a single example where the end result was better then the proposal when the arguments are those that you've cited. IIRC, it has always, always worked out worse for everyone involved in the end.
...I miss massmotorist
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: 1350 Boylston
You lost me at "there's no good point to zoning". Do you live in Billerica by chance?
If zoning isn't important, then why have community meetings, why have master plans, why have a zoning board and a zoning board of appeals?
There are two legitimate POVs here: one, the project is too tall for what else is on the street and for what has been approved for heights in the neighborhood; and, two, the project replaces a wasted piece of land with a useful and beneficial piece of real estate.
I'd love to see the building go tall and big but those in the neighborhood who are raising concerns - and not just complaining - have a legitimate beef.
You lost me at "there's no good point to zoning". Do you live in Billerica by chance?
If zoning isn't important, then why have community meetings, why have master plans, why have a zoning board and a zoning board of appeals?
There are two legitimate POVs here: one, the project is too tall for what else is on the street and for what has been approved for heights in the neighborhood; and, two, the project replaces a wasted piece of land with a useful and beneficial piece of real estate.
I'd love to see the building go tall and big but those in the neighborhood who are raising concerns - and not just complaining - have a legitimate beef.
Re: 1350 Boylston
Zoning is not the same thing as planning, John.
I live in Boston. I see American city zoning as being one of the biggest failures of the city planning movement. The zoning code was adopted here in the mid 1950s. It is not a coincidence that the city stopped building enough housing and generally went downhill at around that time.
It gave people a way to encode their own selfish interests into indecipherable dimensions and specifications, without having to justify their choices. They could tell other people how to use their land and not have to ever give any rationale.
With planning you are supposed to give a goal and a justification. Something that people can discuss and debate about. Perhaps there's more than one way to achieve that goal. Perhaps that goal is no longer desirable.
Zoning is a low level tool that throws out all human judgement and reasoning. It encodes the preferences of a self-appointed, unelected, committee of busybodies. Or worse -- of a central planner. It's forced on everyone in the neighborhood. And it doesn't have to justify itself in any way. And that's why it's been a disaster.
Zoning is not the same thing as planning, John.
I live in Boston. I see American city zoning as being one of the biggest failures of the city planning movement. The zoning code was adopted here in the mid 1950s. It is not a coincidence that the city stopped building enough housing and generally went downhill at around that time.
It gave people a way to encode their own selfish interests into indecipherable dimensions and specifications, without having to justify their choices. They could tell other people how to use their land and not have to ever give any rationale.
With planning you are supposed to give a goal and a justification. Something that people can discuss and debate about. Perhaps there's more than one way to achieve that goal. Perhaps that goal is no longer desirable.
Zoning is a low level tool that throws out all human judgement and reasoning. It encodes the preferences of a self-appointed, unelected, committee of busybodies. Or worse -- of a central planner. It's forced on everyone in the neighborhood. And it doesn't have to justify itself in any way. And that's why it's been a disaster.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: 1350 Boylston
Thank you!
Thank you!
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
Perfectly said! Seriously, you knocked it out of the park.
IMO, zoning should be limited to the most simple, SimCity 1ish levels: RCI (Residential, Commercial, Industrial). We have a massive community process post-proposal for every project of any significance in this city, so it's not like a 60 story tower is going to all of a sudden pop up in the middle of Beacon Hill. We should allow each project to be proposed without previous constraints set in place, and then let the communities, developers, and government work out a plan which is both fitting and beneficial for all parties impacted by the project. Community plans are great, and should be encouraged...but they shouldn't be legally binding.
As Matthew said, there's no justifiable reason for community groups to force their own interests onto a private piece of property--especially not years in advance. A decade ago, this project wouldn't have fit the neighborhood. Now it's perfectly suitable for the area.
On top of all that, how much of the community actually participated in the original plan? This is a 20,000 person neighborhood at the moment...could the participation level been any greater than 1%? How many people who live there now, lived there in 2004?
Perfectly said! Seriously, you knocked it out of the park.
IMO, zoning should be limited to the most simple, SimCity 1ish levels: RCI (Residential, Commercial, Industrial). We have a massive community process post-proposal for every project of any significance in this city, so it's not like a 60 story tower is going to all of a sudden pop up in the middle of Beacon Hill. We should allow each project to be proposed without previous constraints set in place, and then let the communities, developers, and government work out a plan which is both fitting and beneficial for all parties impacted by the project. Community plans are great, and should be encouraged...but they shouldn't be legally binding.
As Matthew said, there's no justifiable reason for community groups to force their own interests onto a private piece of property--especially not years in advance. A decade ago, this project wouldn't have fit the neighborhood. Now it's perfectly suitable for the area.
On top of all that, how much of the community actually participated in the original plan? This is a 20,000 person neighborhood at the moment...could the participation level been any greater than 1%? How many people who live there now, lived there in 2004?
citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
Re: 1350 Boylston
And a higher population closer to 36k means that it would be nearly impossible to really get everyones input and at the time this was written in 2004 the population was smaller and there has probably been a large addition of new residents and some old residents leaving a lot has happened in 9 years. This looks very contextual based on what is next to it and across the street. Also though the zoning for this was not written in 1950 the way zoning works has not changed since then and it is still far too blunt a tool.
And a higher population closer to 36k means that it would be nearly impossible to really get everyones input and at the time this was written in 2004 the population was smaller and there has probably been a large addition of new residents and some old residents leaving a lot has happened in 9 years. This looks very contextual based on what is next to it and across the street. Also though the zoning for this was not written in 1950 the way zoning works has not changed since then and it is still far too blunt a tool.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: 1350 Boylston
Guys, it doesn't matter that the zoning the neighborhood worked up is inane. What matters is that they worked very hard to come up with it, so we owe it to them to pretend it makes sense.
Guys, it doesn't matter that the zoning the neighborhood worked up is inane. What matters is that they worked very hard to come up with it, so we owe it to them to pretend it makes sense.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
Even then, this neighborhood has made enormous changes since then.
Using which census tracts? I used 10204, 10408, 10203, 10103, and 10104 and got a total population of 19,541. Regardles, as CityLover mentioned, that larger population gives even more validation to the argument that there's no way a small group of long-term residents are able to get a full gauge of what the neighborhood as a whole wants to do.
You're fully admitting that this plan was written by a small minority of people who live in the area. Why shouldn't a developer be able to challenge a plan written by a group of people who represent a small percentage of the community?
Haha well said!
Even then, this neighborhood has made enormous changes since then.
Using which census tracts? I used 10204, 10408, 10203, 10103, and 10104 and got a total population of 19,541. Regardles, as CityLover mentioned, that larger population gives even more validation to the argument that there's no way a small group of long-term residents are able to get a full gauge of what the neighborhood as a whole wants to do.
You're fully admitting that this plan was written by a small minority of people who live in the area. Why shouldn't a developer be able to challenge a plan written by a group of people who represent a small percentage of the community?
Haha well said!
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Re: 1350 Boylston
Fen, the thing that none of the neighborhood groups can ever communicate is WHY their arbitrary decisions are worth a damn. Simply put, this proposal is not out of scale or context with ANYTHING except a fairly arbitrary zoning policy.
10 years ago maybe the plan looked good and set a pathway forward. Today, because of the progress of the last decade, that parcel is worth a price that the old zoning can't justify. It will stay Burger King forever with the current zoning.
Everyone needs to look at this proposal on its face in the modern context. You can't just hunker down with your fingers in your ear and say "nah nah nah nah! We are (were?) boss of the playground and we decided!"
Fen, the thing that none of the neighborhood groups can ever communicate is WHY their arbitrary decisions are worth a damn. Simply put, this proposal is not out of scale or context with ANYTHING except a fairly arbitrary zoning policy.
10 years ago maybe the plan looked good and set a pathway forward. Today, because of the progress of the last decade, that parcel is worth a price that the old zoning can't justify. It will stay Burger King forever with the current zoning.
Everyone needs to look at this proposal on its face in the modern context. You can't just hunker down with your fingers in your ear and say "nah nah nah nah! We are (were?) boss of the playground and we decided!"
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
But even with all this, what is the real problem with having a taller building in this parcel? You are saying that the community is for major development...why is there such a fear and disdain for heights among community groups?
What gives your group the right to tell others how to design their private property? If this were a gigantic skyscraper that was totally out of place and threatened to overload the neighborhood, that would make sense...but it appears your complaints have nothing to do with scale and are purely based on how that scale is achieved!
But even with all this, what is the real problem with having a taller building in this parcel? You are saying that the community is for major development...why is there such a fear and disdain for heights among community groups?
What gives your group the right to tell others how to design their private property? If this were a gigantic skyscraper that was totally out of place and threatened to overload the neighborhood, that would make sense...but it appears your complaints have nothing to do with scale and are purely based on how that scale is achieved!
Re: 1350 Boylston
The Fenway West report is better than most zoning codes because it does provide some basis for its choices. But in the end it's still just an imposed set of arbitrarily chosen numbers. For example, the 0.75 parking space min/max per unit:
Both of these are rationales, although not very specific ones. That's fine, it just doesn't explain the choice of "0.75". And that's why it fails. How were the authors of this report supposed to know the numbers for financial viability of projects in 2013? Do they have an oracle? Why is 0.75 the number which magically solves the developers' problems and the neighborhood's problems? It also precludes the idea of smart street parking reform to solve the "overloading" problem. And it precludes the idea that developers may actively seek to reduce the number of cars owned by their tenants. Just to name two.
I'm more familiar with the process in Allston/Brighton where I've met some of the people who worked on the last revision of the zoning code. Some mean well, some don't. I can tell you that it was a small group of people relative to the size of the neighborhood. And they absolutely intended to socially engineer Allston through zoning code manipulation. It was drawn up largely based on the ideas of suburban Brighton residents, it was done back in the 1990s, and it was specifically designed to slowly destroy Allston as an urban neighborhood. And they are proud of it.
When I hear these folks talk about "the neighborhood wants" this or that, I know that what they are really saying is "we want." They don't give a damn about the actual residents of the neighborhood.
I've heard that the Fenway was more enlightened, but they are still using the same old bad tools.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
Haha, I just need to emphasize that this is really the opposite of what I mean. The SimCity style zoning is the worst sort. I am afraid that SimCity may have had a negative impact on cities by infecting future planners with bad ideas!
The reason why it's bad is that Residential, Commercial, Industrial doesn't explain anything about itself. It's an arbitrary categorization. Why should grocery stores be separated from residential? Why should jobs be separated from residential? Why should different kinds of businesses be separated?
Well, you can think of reasons for some cases: most prominently, pollution. Other kinds of nuisances as well. But that's just it: rather than segregating uses through broad categories, instead, state exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish.
So: "industries which emit pollution, generate noise, dangerous truck traffic, etc" would need to be kept away from homes. But businesses which do not generate pollution or nuisance, and perhaps provide a service to consumers, there's no reason to segregate them. And it's socially detrimental to do so.
"Mixed use" is the big buzzword these days but it's just general common sense. Let people live near services and jobs unless there's an overriding public safety reason.
The Fenway West report is better than most zoning codes because it does provide some basis for its choices. But in the end it's still just an imposed set of arbitrarily chosen numbers. For example, the 0.75 parking space min/max per unit:
Both of these are rationales, although not very specific ones. That's fine, it just doesn't explain the choice of "0.75". And that's why it fails. How were the authors of this report supposed to know the numbers for financial viability of projects in 2013? Do they have an oracle? Why is 0.75 the number which magically solves the developers' problems and the neighborhood's problems? It also precludes the idea of smart street parking reform to solve the "overloading" problem. And it precludes the idea that developers may actively seek to reduce the number of cars owned by their tenants. Just to name two.
I'm more familiar with the process in Allston/Brighton where I've met some of the people who worked on the last revision of the zoning code. Some mean well, some don't. I can tell you that it was a small group of people relative to the size of the neighborhood. And they absolutely intended to socially engineer Allston through zoning code manipulation. It was drawn up largely based on the ideas of suburban Brighton residents, it was done back in the 1990s, and it was specifically designed to slowly destroy Allston as an urban neighborhood. And they are proud of it.
When I hear these folks talk about "the neighborhood wants" this or that, I know that what they are really saying is "we want." They don't give a damn about the actual residents of the neighborhood.
I've heard that the Fenway was more enlightened, but they are still using the same old bad tools.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
Haha, I just need to emphasize that this is really the opposite of what I mean. The SimCity style zoning is the worst sort. I am afraid that SimCity may have had a negative impact on cities by infecting future planners with bad ideas!
The reason why it's bad is that Residential, Commercial, Industrial doesn't explain anything about itself. It's an arbitrary categorization. Why should grocery stores be separated from residential? Why should jobs be separated from residential? Why should different kinds of businesses be separated?
Well, you can think of reasons for some cases: most prominently, pollution. Other kinds of nuisances as well. But that's just it: rather than segregating uses through broad categories, instead, state exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish.
So: "industries which emit pollution, generate noise, dangerous truck traffic, etc" would need to be kept away from homes. But businesses which do not generate pollution or nuisance, and perhaps provide a service to consumers, there's no reason to segregate them. And it's socially detrimental to do so.
"Mixed use" is the big buzzword these days but it's just general common sense. Let people live near services and jobs unless there's an overriding public safety reason.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: 1350 Boylston
Haha yea SimCity was a little whacky when it came to that stuff, so let me clarify a few things:
1. I was suggesting that when the gov & community are setting up these plans, they should be able to suggest a plot would be best served with residential, commercial, etc...but they shouldn't be able to dictate "well this parcel should be capped off at a 100' height limit" or should only be able to hold X apartments/X sq ft of office space.
2. I don't consider services like grocery stores, restaurants, bars, pharmacies, a lot of retail or even bank branches to fall under "commercial" in this context. I'm 100% for mixed use for urban lots. I think any major residential development should have retail components to help a neighborhood at street level. When I think commercial, I think offices of businesses which don't necessarily directly interact with the neighborhood besides getting coffee, lunch, etc.
Haha yea SimCity was a little whacky when it came to that stuff, so let me clarify a few things:
1. I was suggesting that when the gov & community are setting up these plans, they should be able to suggest a plot would be best served with residential, commercial, etc...but they shouldn't be able to dictate "well this parcel should be capped off at a 100' height limit" or should only be able to hold X apartments/X sq ft of office space.
2. I don't consider services like grocery stores, restaurants, bars, pharmacies, a lot of retail or even bank branches to fall under "commercial" in this context. I'm 100% for mixed use for urban lots. I think any major residential development should have retail components to help a neighborhood at street level. When I think commercial, I think offices of businesses which don't necessarily directly interact with the neighborhood besides getting coffee, lunch, etc.