Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
You couldn't remember more incorrectly! (don't take it personally; everyone misremembers things all the time, of course...)
"In order for this building to be within the current Shadow Laws the proposed tower would have to be cut in half to be from 350 feet to 440 feet tall." (4th paragraph of story below)
http://beaconhilltimes.com/2016/12/16/winthrop-square-project-draws-large-crowd-over-shadows/
Also, 1 Bromfield is in the Midtown Cultural District zoning overlay, where different shadow laws apply. I doubt it makes any sense to lump that proposal in with 115 Winthrop, on this particular matter...
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.
You couldn't remember more incorrectly! (don't take it personally; everyone misremembers things all the time, of course...)
"In order for this building to be within the current Shadow Laws the proposed tower would have to be cut in half to be from 350 feet to 440 feet tall." (4th paragraph of story below)
http://beaconhilltimes.com/2016/12/16/winthrop-square-project-draws-large-crowd-over-shadows/
Also, 1 Bromfield is in the Midtown Cultural District zoning overlay, where different shadow laws apply. I doubt it makes any sense to lump that proposal in with 115 Winthrop, on this particular matter...