The Harlo (née Skanska Fenway Project (Burger King))| 1350 Boylston Street | Fenway

[tmac9wr]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I'm not saying they shouldn't be. When I gave the RCI example, I wasn't putting it on a neighborhood level...I was talking plot by plot. I think it would be great to live close to my office. In fact, if I didn't work in arguably the most expensive neighborhood in São Paulo, I'd love to live here too. I just can't afford it.

I'm all for neighborhoods having mixed uses. I believe the development across the street is going to have offices, right? I think that's a great move.

 

[underground]

Re: 1350 Boylston

If we let Skanska violate a stupid restriction, then everyone will want to violate stupid restrictions. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

 

[underground]

Re: 1350 Boylston

The issues with the Kensington, Seaport, et al aren't height or zoning violations though, are they? They're poor materials, poor street levels, and odd massing.

 

[fattony]

Re: 1350 Boylston

If we let Skanska violate a stupid restriction, then everyone will want to violate stupid restrictions. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Too true!

It already is that world though, isn't it? Isn't the entire city covered in overly restrictive zoning laws that force VIRTUALLY ALL development proposals to ask for special permissions?

There is nothing special about this proposal, the Fenway, or these particular zoning regs.

 

[Matthew]

Re: 1350 Boylston

Wants a taller building than anything else on that corner which will wreck the effect of a high spine as envisioned in the zoning and will be placing height on the south side which was intended to be an area of lesser height to step down to the 5-6 story context of the existing neighborhood.

Can you explain in real terms what the actual benefit to the neighborhood is in having "areas of lesser height that step down?"

It sounds like purely a case of aesthetics to me. They want the "skyline" to look a certain way from afar. I honestly think that "skyline" is a completely pointless goal to be shooting for in urban planning. I know some people like it, but it really has no bearing with the experience of the city from within.

Wants a significant increase in FAR over the zoning to increase the buildable value of the land which they overpaid for to recoup their costs. This even more of an issue than the height (which if it had been proposed to match Trilogy or 1330's might have been palatable because of the low-rise section offsetting the tower portion) as the developer is trying to make the neighborhood carry their financial burden by exceeding zoning.

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. How is the neighborhood being forced to "carry their financial burden?" What burden does this proposal place on the neighborhood? Can you name a real cost?

Secondly, how do you know they "overpaid"? Perhaps the land is worth that much. The market is variable. Zoning is static. How could zoning that was written ten years ago anticipate the market value today?

What you don't realize is that this sets a precedent for ignoring zoning and undermines the public process to the point no one will bother participating in it anymore. The reason the Fenway is developing as it has and is now and not a seasonal suburban centric baseball park Disneyland or Seaport Part II is because of the participation of the very residents you are maligning.

I want the neighborhood to participate, and not just a tiny group of self-selected busy-bodies either. But that doesn't justify the use of a bad tool like zoning. It is quite possible to avoid being turned into a "baseball park Disneyland" without blind, arbitrary dimensional specifications. In fact, that's a good general principle for planning this area that could be written down: "We don't want our neighborhood turned into a bland suburban baseball park Disneyland." I think that's a perfectly fair sentiment and I bet most would find it agreeable.

So then the question becomes: Do you think the Skanska proposal works for or against that?

I want members of the neighborhood to stand up and justify why they believe that their choices should override the choices of other members of the neighborhood and also the developer.

Don't hide behind zoning.

 

[davem]

Re: 1350 Boylston

Too true!

It already is that world though, isn't it? Isn't the entire city covered in overly restrictive zoning laws that force VIRTUALLY ALL development proposals to ask for special permissions?

There is nothing special about this proposal, the Fenway, or these particular zoning regs.

^This.

They are trying to get a variance. Which they have every right to do. And with the development in the decade since the Fenway master plan (WHICH HAS DONE VERY WELL TO GUIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP TO THIS POINT) makes perfect sense to seek.

Fenway, you keep getting upset that the developer "overpaid" and is now trying to recoup costs by building a larger building then the 2004 zoning deemed necessary. ISN'T THIS A GOOD THING? Doesn't that show that the zoning worked well, and has managed to positively increase property values to the point that the only way to build is to build taller then envisioned?

I want to reiterate this point as well: If not granted a variance to build taller, they will have to cut corners in other ways. That will be by value engineering the building, particularly the facade (the part that you, the neighborhood resident, will have to see EVERY DAY) to death. THAT is how you wind up with a Kensington; not by granting developers variances. IIRC, That's what happened with the Dainty Dot too. We were going to get a beautiful building with the factory as a base. Then the complaints started, and now we have something that may or may not be okay, but certainly not as good as the original proposal.


Regarding the "high spine": I don't see how this effects it at all. As I already said in this post here, The Point will still be the taller building, by a good five floors. Also, there are several parcels immediately south of this parcel that can be redeveloped in a manner to still allow the gradual step down to the 4-6 story heights in the neighborhood proper. This particular building, on this particular parcel, has no effect on the high spine concept.

It seems that the core of your argument is that you feel disrespected because an entity that makes it money building buildings is trying to make money building buildings. As Matt is hinting at above, I have not heard a single argument of substance against the building. Only that it "violates blah blah blah ten years ago blah blah high spine". Matt asked some really great leading questions above, I look forward to your responses.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 1350 Boylston

The two points are Skanska:

Wants a taller building than anything else on that corner which will wreck the effect of a high spine as envisioned in the zoning and will be placing height on the south side which was intended to be an area of lesser height to step down to the 5-6 story context of the existing neighborhood.

Wants a significant increase in FAR over the zoning to increase the buildable value of the land which they overpaid for to recoup their costs. This even more of an issue than the height (which if it had been proposed to match Trilogy or 1330's might have been palatable because of the low-rise section offsetting the tower portion) as the developer is trying to make the neighborhood carry their financial burden by exceeding zoning.

What you don't realize is that this sets a precedent for ignoring zoning and undermines the public process to the point no one will bother participating in it anymore. The reason the Fenway is developing as it has and is now and not a seasonal suburban centric baseball park Disneyland or Seaport Part II is because of the participation of the very residents you are maligning.

Just because it doesn't conform exactly with what the community put forth, doesn't mean it's undermining the public process. The community is in effect trying to tell the developer how he can spend his money and how much money he has the right to make by trying to put such limitations on the parcel. As unfair as you claim this process is to all of the community's hard work, I think I could argue it's more unfair for other people to tell people how they're going to spend their at least dozens and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars on a project like this.

It appears up until now the community has been very good about development in this area, however I think it's difficult to say without the community, this would be a "suburban centric baseball park Disneyland". What exactly does that mean, anyway?

It's also difficult to claim this would be the Seaport Part II. This is the development of a few blocks of prime real estate in one of the best areas in the city. It's surrounded by the Back Bay Fens, Longwood, and an already beautiful neighborhood in Kenmore/Fenway. Conversely, the Seaport is a vast wasteland of parking lots being built from the ground up. While one side borders the financial district, the other is nothing but industrial area. Even Fort Point is just beginning to get major residential development in the area, and therefore the entire Seaport lacks basic amenities. I and, as far as I can tell, everyone else here aren't happy with how the Seaport has been developed so far, but we can't necessarily assume this would be developed in the same manner without the community assistance. In fact, you could look at the development near North Station (Merano, Victor, Lovejoy Wharf, One Canal, future dev of the parking lot in front of the Garden) and argue the quality is on par with what is being developed in Kenmore.

I'm not intending to malign the community with my comments, but I feel the need to speak up when I believe they're being unfair.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I want to reiterate this point as well: If not granted a variance to build taller, they will have to cut corners in other ways. That will be by value engineering the building, particularly the facade (the part that you, the neighborhood resident, will have to see EVERY DAY) to death. THAT is how you wind up with a Kensington; not by granting developers variances. IIRC, That's what happened with the Dainty Dot too. We were going to get a beautiful building with the factory as a base. Then the complaints started, and now we have something that may or may not be okay, but certainly not as good as the original proposal.

This paragraph is perfect. I have nothing else to add, just wanted to point that out.

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: 1350 Boylston

20 years from now nobody will be regretting the decision to let an 18-story tower rise in an area that is suddenly thick with 10-20 story blocks even if the original plan from waaaayyyyyy back in '04 proposed something different. The neighborhood will keep evolving, the master plan will be looked back on with a quaint sort of nostalgia, and people's lives will go on, with only the crotchety old-timers, all two dozen of them, still grumbling about "that durn tower that went up on the wrong side of the street!"

No one else will care, because they see that in the grand scheme of things, an 18-story tower in the middle of a world class city isn't that big of a deal, and really isn't even worth batting an eyelash at.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 1350 Boylston

The problem is if a variance is approved here the developers of the parcels will ask for the same deal. 1282 and 1330 were specifically zoned as PDAs to establish the high point for the south side of the street.

Not necessarily. This is a Burger King parking lot located on a main road and surrounded by the bulk of this redevelopment. The parcel to the South is in an already developed area, and therefore would have a much more difficult time justifying a large diversion from its surroundings. But 8-10 stories would fit in the community's "step" plan.

What makes the community's argument so difficult on this parcel is that it's such an arbitrary ruling. It's almost like they went down parcel by parcel playing duck duck goose. There's no credible reason for this "step" effect to all of a sudden be located at that intersection, especially since it's on Boylston St.

 

[Matthew]

Re: 1350 Boylston

The problem is if a variance is approved here the developers of the parcels will ask for the same deal. 1282 and 1330 were specifically zoned as PDAs to establish the high point for the south side of the street.

Why? Aesthetic preference?

They overpaid in terms of the acquisition cost to what they wanted for a profit, despite knowing what that ratio was from the get go, and now want the city to let them build more to achieve the level of profit they desire. This effects the neighborhood by not only seeking to circumvent desires expressed in the zoning but by opening the door to potentially harmful speculation.

This makes it sounds like a few people just resent Skanska for trying to make money.

If you want to combat harmful speculation, then adopt measures which target harmful speculation. Directly.

Using zoning as a tool against speculation is just going to stunt the growth of the neighborhood in the long run. It's a permanent disfigurement of the built environment which has far-reaching negative effects.

Do you really want a crappy Burger King parking lot to occupy that site for another ten years or more?

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I don't know about the parking lot... but I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom.

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: 1350 Boylston

Haha I heard that on the radio yesterday while driving around taking pics!

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I'm going to go back and match the commenters on this thread with those who complained about the Shreve Crump & Low building being torn down. That's just a private developer too doing what he pleases with his private property.

So suck on it.

 

[DBM]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I'm going to go back and match the commenters on this thread with those who complained about the Shreve Crump & Low building being torn down. That's just a private developer too doing what he pleases with his private property.

So suck on it.

I will note in passing that your wording almost implies that the building HAS been torn down. Despite the rancor that project generated, 350 Boylston is still very much standing, with Druker's most recent quotations on in it implying he's perfectly content to let the project stay stalled, indefinitely:

"I would rather be under construction, but the building is leased now and we have positive cash flow and I’m not under any pressure." (BBJ, 2/8/13)

Which I guess is rather ironic, no?

 

[Matthew]

Re: 1350 Boylston

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/2012/10/land-value-tax-rent-inflation-and-gentrification/

Eliminating the "property tax" and replacing it with a "land value tax" is a direct way to combat land speculation, address concerns about gentrification, and motivate developers of housing supply to keep up with demand.

This is a much more suitable solution than artificially restrictive zoning, which has all kinds of negative side-effects.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: 1350 Boylston

If anyone can point me to the property (building) tax vs. land value tax debate, I'd greatly appreciate it. It's something I've only started thinking about lately. The concept of taxing land instead both amazes and confounds me.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 1350 Boylston

I'm going to go back and match the commenters on this thread with those who complained about the Shreve Crump & Low building being torn down. That's just a private developer too doing what he pleases with his private property.

So suck on it.

I don't believe anyone was complaining about the size of the development involving the Shrump building, just wanting to make sure the unique, beautiful architecture of the block wasn't lost.

I'm not sure what that situation really has to do with this one though.

 

[JS38]

Re: 1350 Boylston

 

[Mike]

Re: 1350 Boylston

Menino on Fenway project: ‘Not my fault if they overpaid’
Aug 13, 2013
Thomas Grillo
Real Estate Editor
Boston Business Journal


Mayor Thomas M. Menino offered support to the Fenway neighborhood’s opposition to Skanska’s proposed 18-story apartment building on Boylston Street.

“The building height will be determined by the neighborhood working with the Boston Redevelopment Authority,” Menino said following a celebration of improvements to the Blackstone Square fountain in the South End on Monday night. “It’s not my fault they paid a lot of money for the site, they knew the zoning rules when they bought it and they have to work within those rules.”

Skanska, the New York developer with a Boston office, recently filed plans to replace the Burger King and a surface parking lot near Fenway Park with “1350 Boylston.” The 196,500-square-foot building would feature 240 apartments and 7,050 square feet of ground floor retail. Skanska bought the Burger King last year for $12.4 million. Some real estate experts say the company overpaid for the property that is assessed by the city at $2.3 million.

At a Boston Redevelopment Authority hearing in July, the Fenway Civic Association opposed the development noting the zoning on the site allows for a maximum height of 115 feet or about 10 stories. Skanska’s is proposing a 195-foot tall tower.

William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association, said the group’s board of directors met last week with Skanska officials, hoping to iron out their differences.

“We want something built on the Burger King site,” he said. “We will continue to try to talk it through and see if we can’t come to a place where they can be successful and we can be happy with what’s built. But what they proposed is a little over the top.”

Shawn Hurley, Skanska’s regional manager, did not return a call seeking comment.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2013/08/menino-on-fenway-project.html