Why does Boston have a monopoly on height?

J

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
785
I was thinking about two things recently

-The NIMBY/Menino/BRA team that fights height, regardless of the form. 50 stories on the waterfront? Too tall. 19 stories next to the city's 2nd tallest building? Too tall. 25 story dorm over the YMCA? Too tall.

-How cities like DC and Paris with a legal height limit have tall buildings just outside their borders.

So my question is, why isn't that the case in Boston? If the BRA fights tall buildings so much, why not go to where the BRA doesn't exist, like Cambridge or Revere or Sommerville (but obviously not Brookline).


Take Sullivan Square. While the square itself is actually part of boston, right across the street is Sommerville. You have T access, highway access, and potentially commuter rail. It's about the same distance to downtown as the pru is to downtown.

Why not try building there?

Yes, there will be NIMBYs (there always are), but as long as the Mayor and the planning people ignore them, they're powerless. You can only get attention if people are willing to listen.

How about Cambridge, west of MIT. The Hyatt is all alone there, and just north of it are ugly industrial type buildings. Why not still in a nice 500 footer?

Or how about the Alewife area. It already has a bunch of butt-ugly buildings. Who would object to a 600 foot glass marvel?


I just find it hard to believe that while Menino is so quick to turn away new tax dollars, Sommerville would be willing to turn down some potential major revitalization.

And look at Everett.

8 minutes away from the financial district via ferry. Potential orange line branch or commuter rail stop (before Chelsea).

Look at it, it's a wasteland on prime waterfront.

There can't possibly be any NIMBY's, just look at the place.

Why not call over the big names and tell them you have lots of land for their tall offices?


Orange line extension with station in urban wasteland
everett.jpg
 
I'm not positive, but I believe Logan/FAA screws over that part of Everett with height.

EDIT: I checked. It's a 400 ft cap.


But who the hell wants to be next to a coal plant?

Also, this industry is needed somewhere. You have pretty major food/produce, LNG, fuel, and scrapping operations going on, among other things. And I'm sure Everett rakes in plenty of taxes (okay, maybe not as much as they would with towers, though).
 
Take Sullivan Square. While the square itself is actually part of boston, right across the street is Sommerville.
Click to expand...

As soon as you cross the line from Boston into Somerville, you're in an established residential area and commercial district along Broadway. What you suggest might work north of I-93, on the way into Assembly Square, but not in East Somerville.
 
The Alewife area would be suitable for some 500 footers. Great Red Line and Route 2 access. Of course the NIMBY's in nearby Arlington would object, but the devlopment would happen on the Cambridge side of the line.
 
I too have wondered about this. Does Cambridge itself have a height limit? What's stopping them from building some 400'+ towers between Kendall and Central? Isn't this whole area dense enough to justify building taller in select places?

By the way, anybody know what happened with the Gateway(?) project? Apparently there is an area of Boston where they would possibly allow taller buildings, like an 800 footer. Obviously the economy put the kibosh on many of these projects, but is there a chance some of them could be restarted? Look at London for example, they are going to be starting construction soon on the "Cheesegrater" and the "Walkie Talkie", not to mention all the other tall buildings currently underway. Does anybody believe that a skyscraper rennaissance in Boston is possible, at least within the next decade?
 
Does Cambridge itself have a height limit? What's stopping them from building some 400'+ towers between Kendall and Central? Isn't this whole area dense enough to justify building taller in select places?
Click to expand...

This is a fully-built-out area of dense urban fabric -- lots of small residential and commercial buildings on small parcels, something I thought we liked around here. Ripping part of it out to make room for superblock towers doesn't make good sense. Infilling some of the parking lots and one-story buildings does, but you won't get towers that way.

If you want a tower in this part of Cambridge, I'd put it on some of the empty land around the DOT research center.

Around Alewife, I've heard that one of the big problems is asbestos and other ground contamination from the WR Grace (Dewey & Almy) chemical plant. There should be office development east of the station towards Russell Field, but there isn't because of this.
 
Ron Newman said:
As soon as you cross the line from Boston into Somerville, you're in an established residential area and commercial district along Broadway. What you suggest might work north of I-93, on the way into Assembly Square, but not in East Somerville.
Click to expand...

I've only been to broadway twice, but it seemed like that street could use a nice dose of revitalization.

As for your argument that there are established residential areas....that doesnt stop the pru complex being between bay village and the back bay brownstones.

And of course the north end is pretty close to the financial district.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a 30 foot building next to a single family home.

And why do they have to be superblock towers?
 
And look at Everett.
Click to expand...
Where would you propose they move those businesses and infrastructure to? I can't think of anywhere unless you go well outside the city and then you would be ruining woodlands and wetlands.
 
Quincy Center is the best bet outside of Cambridge and they're already planning on some height so that could be a possibility. I could see it (400-500') being a sense of civic pride to a place like Quincy like the Citi Center is in Queens.

Nothing is gonna happen like a 4-500 footer in this economy or before developers get completely sick of tossing proposals at the mayor's feet which will probably happen in 10-15 yrs.
 
all they have to do is built between the td garden and government center and there will be no flight path issues
 
Only have to fight BB and North End NIMBY's, that's a walk in the park
 
Actually, there are projects in the hopper in the BB.

- The Exeter St residences above Lord and Taylor (did I hear L&T is getting a third floor to make up for impacts to the south part of the existing L&T space?)
- Prudential plaza/888, even though it's on hold.
- Christian Science Belvidere triangle
- Christian Science Sunday school tower
- Berklee dorm building
- Berklee corner tower
- BAC parcel 14 tower+building

None of these are hughely tall but they provide density within the corridor identified for this. I think that's great!
 
jass said:
As for your argument that there are established residential areas....that doesnt stop the pru complex being between bay village and the back bay brownstones.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they didn't demolish part of the Back Bay brownstone neighborhood to build the Pru. The only things it displaced were a railroad yard and Mechanics Hall. To build a Pru-sized development in East Somerville along Broadway would mean tearing up much of the existing neighborhood.
 
Where would the demand come from for any towers of this height? One Lincoln was built on spec and was only successful due to luck, no?
 
I think one or two 500 footers would fit very well in Kendall sq. There are still some parking lots that it could happen at. And they don't need to be super massive either. I think it would really make Cambridge's skyline pop out a bit more from the Boston perspective.



I can vouch that every now and then in Everett planes fly very low, I used to practice at a rehersal facility ( more like heroin den) behind a Peanut Butter factory near Wellington. So there would probably be a cap at least in some parts of that city. Malden Center has some height to it. Maybe there.
 
Actually Malden center would be a pretty good spot. There is already a huge hole right in the heart that could support a big building, plus two train stops, a ton of bus routes and a City Hall/Plaza area in desperate need of redevelopment.

You don't hear much about Malden NIMBY's but they are there (Hell, I know most of them), so that could be stumbling block.
 
Part of the problem is that there's little consistency in Boston's laws/process regarding towers. If a developer thinks it's possible to win Menino's favor and get a tower built downtown, there's little point in risking being the first to get a new commercial center going in some close-in suburb.

Boston also still has a lot of space potential - there's a lot of room for 15-20 story stubs before the city is maxed out on buildings below the effective limit established by political limitations. And there's lots of room for landscrapers and stubs in the Seaport. DC and Paris have outside hubs because they've effectively maxed out their buildable low- and midrise space.
 
Because there's not enough face-time in Cambridge or any of the surrounding towns and cities. Although if a well known and enormous firm that attracts a lot of people to an area builds outside of Boston, it might start a self-reinforcing effect where other firms will move to take advantage of it. However, this is not likely because no firm in their right mind would choose Cambridge or Somerville over Boston unless its a firm that needs no face time and wants a cheaper facility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top