Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

In my opinion there must be some sort of under the table dealing going on here. Why would we propose to change the laws when we haven't even gotten clearance from the FAA yet? Don't get me wrong Im all for the tower but there is a lot going on here that we don't know about. I think we should get rid of the law and each proposal should be based on a case by case basis. Why is this even a state law and not a city law anyway?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

617 said:
I'd love to know what developments this could impact down the line...1000 boylston ?

Also, look at that shadow picture, how did millennium tower ever get built with the current shadow law???
Click to expand...

At 7:05 am. How will we live? And the article tries to make the shadow rules seem more entrenched by identifying them as "quarter-century-old laws". You only do that when you skew the message and draw attention to a period of time much longer than the rules have actually been in place.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

617 said:
Also, look at that shadow picture, how did millennium tower ever get built with the current shadow law???
Click to expand...

The shadow rules are less restrictive inside the boundaries of the Midtown Cultural District zoning overlay, where MTower happens to stand. It's that simple; nothing nefarious/sneaky went on there whatsoever.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

617 said:
I'd love to know what developments this could impact down the line...1000 boylston ?

Also, look at that shadow picture, how did millennium tower ever get built with the current shadow law???
Click to expand...

I believe that Millennium Tower got to use some of the Midtown Cultural District shadow bank. (I could be wrong.)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

ShawnA said:
Why is this even a state law and not a city law anyway?
Click to expand...

Because it was passed by the state legislature, and not the Boston City Council.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I'm against this, not because of 115, but because of the additional shadow protection elsewhere. Why should a development in Downtown hamper any future development elsewhere in the city, especially when those areas affected are the places where the city should build tall? I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of the city for one tower in downtown.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KentXie said:
I'm against this, not because of 115, but because of the additional shadow protection elsewhere. Why should a development in Downtown hamper any future development elsewhere in the city, especially when those areas affected are the places where the city should build tall? I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of the city for one tower in downtown.
Click to expand...

I would image Walsh had his people take a look and figure out this won't hamper any other large scale developments (SST for example). Really anything being built behind either this or Millenium Towers shouldn't be an issue for downtown. With Copley only thing this might possibly affect is a Pike tower north of the exempted ones being built at Back Bay station.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KentXie said:
I'm against this, not because of 115, but because of the additional shadow protection elsewhere. Why should a development in Downtown hamper any future development elsewhere in the city, especially when those areas affected are the places where the city should build tall? I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of the city for one tower in downtown.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. A horribly misguided consideration.

But as i've mentioned here before, there's been a tacit shadow law over Copley Square since Copley Tower was given it's permits to build. It was explained to me by BPDA staff in the fall of '15 when they informed me about the 2 main Back Bay Station towers going under 400' for that very reason.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KentXie said:
I'm against this, not because of 115, but because of the additional shadow protection elsewhere. Why should a development in Downtown hamper any future development elsewhere in the city, especially when those areas affected are the places where the city should build tall? I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of the city for one tower in downtown.
Click to expand...

Walsh sees a big paycheck and doesn't care about the future effects. Remember he's a union guy at heart and they are famous for killing the golden goose in order to gain one gold egg.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It would be sad if they imposed shadow laws. I mean, they're pretty tight to start with...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KentXie said:
I'm against this, not because of 115, but because of the additional shadow protection elsewhere. Why should a development in Downtown hamper any future development elsewhere in the city, especially when those areas affected are the places where the city should build tall? I'm not willing to sacrifice the rest of the city for one tower in downtown.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. What a stupid idea. Nevermind his staff looking around to see if the proposed language would impact other proposed, or existing, developments, what about NEW developments! If the market warrants a taller building in this part of this city in five to ten years, developers are SOL? Build a series of inefficient, costly stump buildings instead?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Email I just received from the Let Boston Rise website. Progress I guess.

"Thank you for joining us in our efforts to Let Boston Rise! One of the main goals of this coalition is to show our support for the Winthrop Square project, which will help our city continue to grow into a thriving destination.

We are pleased to share that Mayor Marty Walsh has officially filed the Home Rule Petition to modify the existing Shadow Law."


Here’s how you can help at this critical time:

Please contact the following City Councilors and let them know you care about this project moving forward. Every call and email counts!



CRITICAL Boston City Councilors to Contact:

Ayanna Pressley
617-635-4217
ayanna.pressley@boston.gov

Matt O’Malley
Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury
617-635-4220
matthew.omalley@boston.gov

Annissa Essabi George
617-635-4376
a.e.george@boston.gov

Andrea Campbell
Mattapan, Dorchester
617-635-3131
andrea.campbell@boston.gov
ShawnA is online now Report Post
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I thought dina created the let boston rise thing.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

no.... but.... maybe let LA........ Seattle.... SF, etc........
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

B&T story, "Shadow Law Fight Heads To City Council," quotes state rep. Livingstone saying "I don't know of a single legislator who supports this"...

... Again, this home rule petition has to thread the needle twice--exit City Council successfully THEN pass muster as a bill (or whatever) at the State House. This could get quite interesting soon...

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/2017/04/shadow-law-fight-heads-city-council/ (Paywall, sorry!)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Shadow laws are almost the purest distillation of NIMBYism - something that sounds so reasonable on the surface yet ignores pretty much all of human behavior and empirics in order to obstruct building.

People. Like. Shade.

And the limits on shadows are for such picayune portions of days at odd hours of the year.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

curcuas said:
Shadow laws are almost the purest distillation of NIMBYism - something that sounds so reasonable on the surface yet ignores pretty much all of human behavior and empirics in order to obstruct building.

People. Like. Shade.

And the limits on shadows are for such picayune portions of days at odd hours of the year.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, the mere fact that this is being debated blows my mind...almost makes me want to move. I stare at that crumbling garage everyday and to think someone wants to pay US $150M for the privilege.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Can someone answer one thing for me.


The part of this building that will cast the shadow if I remember correctly is like the top 50 feet. So if this trade off goes through, a developer could still build pretty high right?

So maybe they wont be able to go to 775, but if they could go to 6 or 7 hundred or even five still and we get this one done maybe it would not be such a bad deal.

So the question is how high can a developer go with the restrictions that are being proposed here? Thinking about that Bromfield proposal as well.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It seems like Millennium is ready to sacrifice any Common development so it can get up it's tower. A little unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top