Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[bigpicture7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This has nothing to do with shifting market forces. This is Bill Galvin and the MHC doing what they often do - playing obstructionism without good cause. There is a reason that the MHC is referred to as the Massachusetts Hysterial Commission by many in the real estate business.

Mortgaging the city's future to pay for preserving its past. Like a snake eating its own tail. Endowments are a lot more effective way to pay for preservation.

 

[mcus29]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So what happens if somehow they were to block this tower from happening? Does the new shadow law they passed still get enforced in the future?

 

[dshoost88]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So what happens if somehow they were to block this tower from happening? Does the new shadow law they passed still get enforced in the future?

I guess Millennium (or another developer) could always tap B.I.G. or another architect to design a tall tower that wouldn't cast long shadows.

 

[nepatz11]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just make sure you all call your reps and support this project. At the end of the day its the legislature vote


Galvin's quote "whats the hurry" is a comically farsical and ironic parody of development in Boston. Whats the hurry? It's only been 11 years since this was proposed. Unbelievable.

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just make sure you all call your reps and support this project.

I think this is really key. Let's all please do this (if you're a supporter)!!

I know a lot of aB'ers live in Mass but not necessarily Boston, yet care a lot about Boston. Well here's your chance to make an impact on Boston even if you're not a Boston voter.

 

[Coyote137]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just make sure you all call your reps and support this project. At the end of the day its the legislature vote


Galvin's quote "whats the hurry" is a comically farsical and ironic parody of development in Boston. Whats the hurry? It's only been 11 years since this was proposed. Unbelievable.

That was my first thought on reading the article, and very typical of Boston. Having waited until the last possible moment to obstruct and get attention, some self-important grandstander wades into the fray near THE END of a particular process that has already been quite lengthy.

I think it's important for us to connect the dots that "so much development is happening right now!!! omg" because so *little* happened for so many years. Artificial stunting of growth built up pressure that finally gave way, at least partially.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The current/latest plans for this tower still violate the FAA Logan height cap, correct? And the FAA is still, as far as we know, not cool with that?

If the tower is brought down in height to just squeeze under the FAA's cap, would that affect its Common and Gardens shadows? Do we know by how much?

The way I see it, it's dumb to fight a war over shadows when you still have the FAA flying a holding pattern with their (valid) concerns. Millennium should bring the tower down a bit to make the FAA happy, tell their opponents "look, we compromised", and then go to battle over shadows.

By the way, the FAA Logan height limits are pretty much exactly what I want for zoning: clearly stated, mapped out, consistent, and backed by reason and logic. I'd love to see a similar "topo map" created to set clear height limits around the Common and Public Gardens once and for all.

(I admit that I haven't been 100% keeping up on this thread due to all the squabbling and ranting, so excuse me if this has been addressed already)

 

[Coyote137]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The way I see it, it's dumb to fight a war over shadows when you still have the FAA flying a holding pattern with their (valid) concerns. Millennium should bring the tower down a bit to make the FAA happy, tell their opponents "look, we compromised", and then go to battle over shadows.

I don't think it's useful to make a concession in advance of battling over shadows. That only sets them up for further reductions. Better to finish that fight, then bring the proposal in line with 3rd party requirements.

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I don't think it's useful to make a concession in advance of battling over shadows. That only sets them up for further reductions. Better to finish that fight, then bring the proposal in line with 3rd party requirements.

Yes, shadows and FAA are apples and oranges. In my previous life, I worked with the FAA extensively - I can assure you that that conversation will be much more objective and simply about what is/isn't possible, as opposed to this emotion-fueled, ego-fueled shit show that's going on right now. They are not going to let emotions get involved: they are concerned with safe management of their airspace, period.

And since shadows are involved for anything over 400', the shadow argument would have had to be won first anyway. They FAA is not going to care if this gets built at, say, 504'.

By the way, the FAA Logan height limits are pretty much exactly what I want for zoning: clearly stated, mapped out, consistent, and backed by reason and logic.

Totally. My whole issue with all of this is that, from a zoning standpoint, no one is with authority/prerogative standing up and stating: here is where you can build skyscrapers in this city. Aside from FAA (who are competent and level-headed, in case you didn't catch my drift above), all we have from everyone else is "not here," "not here," "not here"..."and definitely not here". And the reason for that is that those who are blocking this tower already have what they want from this city - the future growth and development of Boston is of no interest to them.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The latest plans have the tower at 775 feet while Massport objects to anything over 710 feet [source]. So basically, Massport wants the height scaled down by about 8.4%.

Because the tower is clustered among a bunch of other towers, the far majority of the building will not cast any new shadow on the Common or Gardens. Only the top 200-or-so feet (the part which pokes up above its neighbors) will cast new shadow. So shrinking the tower by 8.4% reduces shadows by significantly more than 8.4%.

Here's a graphic I whipped together:

The longer lines correspond with the shadow length at the tower's current height (775 feet). The shorter lines are scaled down 8.4%, giving an idea of the shadow length at Logan height (710 feet). That's a big difference!

When the changes to the shadow law are debated on Beacon Hill, you can be sure that the legislators will take a look at these shadow projections. Why put these images before the voters when you know that in the end the shadows will be much smaller?

 

[odurandina]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

If there's any developer that can work a deal with Massport, it's Joe Larkin. The BPDA + Marty's only regret is this isn't going 8 or 900', So of course, they're all in for the 775'. Of course you want to save the final battle for the end.

 

[617]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

When I see that shadow map I still can't get over how MT was built without even a discussion about this...

Also, I can't wait to vote Galvin out of office assuming that's possible.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

When I see that shadow map I still can't get over how MT was built without even a discussion about this...

Also, I can't wait to vote Galvin out of office assuming that's possible.

The shadow law exempts buildings in Downtown Crossing and the Midtown Cultural Area.

 

[617]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So basically by changing the law to move forward with Winthrop sq the city effectively shuts the door on future development.

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Galvin's a toothless hack with few if any friends. If Marty convinces DeLeo to back this, there's jack Galvin can do. His purview is historical buildings, and none are affected by this tower. Others have said the same thing I did, which is its a grandstanding politician showing up in the 9th inning trying to remind people that he's still alive, and maybe cash a few checks from a wealthy NIMBY or two.

Regarding the FAA, I view them as the final step. As has been mentioned they aren't trying to get their name in the paper, so whatever maximum allowable height they decide upon after reviewing the proposal is what you get permitted. Get this law passed now and then take it from there.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Regarding the FAA, I view them as the final step. As has been mentioned they aren't trying to get their name in the paper, so whatever maximum allowable height they decide upon after reviewing the proposal is what you get permitted. Get this law passed now and then take it from there.

If any height is cut from the 775', it should be built into this new law so that the excess can remain in the shadow bank for the Midwood tower on Bromfield. I'd still like to see that one hit 700'! (personally, I think the tower portion of the Midwood proposal might be the best this city has ever seen, as long as they fix that horrible base)

 

[Coyote137]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I hesitate to say this, but there's a certain establishment downtown that Mr. Secretary frequents alone many days after work. If anybody wanted to catch a beer with him, and share an opinion or two...

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

If any height is cut from the 775', it should be built into this new law so that the excess can remain in the shadow bank for the Midwood tower on Bromfield. I'd still like to see that one hit 700'! (personally, I think the tower portion of the Midwood proposal might be the best this city has ever seen, as long as they fix that horrible base)

Just my opinion but I wouldn't worry about Bromfield right now. For this development cycle, the city's priorities should be 1) 115 Winthrop Square, and 2) South Station Tower given the complexities of both. The North Station & Haymarket projects seem to have less NIMBY whining or site problems so they'll either be built or not based on the finances.

All the other projects like 1 Bromfield, Fenway pike project, Adam Weiner's project, etc I'd like to see built but they're not as far along or are having other difficulties. Those might have to wait for the next development boom.

Lastly, I also consider Winthrop Sq to be NIMBY's Waterloo. Its already killing them that 1 Dalton is going up (see Glob comments from them opposing all height and wanting Boston to be like Paris). Ram this one up their asses right to the back of their teeth and you break their spirit. They've had that coming for a long time now.

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

...wanting Boston to be like Paris

We all have a vision of what we want our great city to be. It's only fair and reasonable to expect and allow for every individual to conceptualize the future of the city in a way that is a) unique to them, and, b) not something easily understandable at the surface level. Dialog and actual listening is required.

BUT,

The lack of that is the grand farce of this entire situation. The elephant in the room is differing visions of the city's future. The total BS of what's being discussed is a sliver of shadow from early-ass-AM to early-ass-AM.

If there were real leadership involved in this situation, someone would prompt both the opponents and proponents to shift the entire dialog to visions of the city's future. If they did so, I have a strong hunch that the outcome would be comprehensive zoning reform, robust legislation, and a bright path forward.

And Lastly,

Boston is not Paris. And the implicit (and myopic) vision of Boston being only charming/quaint/quiet streets of brick row houses is an exclusionary vision that can only serve a select few. It is not the best future for Boston. As I've shared a dozen times elsewhere on aB, my lens has shifted over the past 5 years now that I advise graduating engineering students. The bright, diverse, born/raised-elswehere "new guard" (e.g., our top graduates) leave this city after graduation because they feel Boston is stuck in the past / not exciting / not futuristic. I want this new guard to want to move here and challenge the old guard.

The entire conversation among the lawmakers, developers, and population, needs to be about converging on a shared vision. Without that, it will be all BS for the foreseeable future of real estate development in this town (err, city).

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just my opinion but I wouldn't worry about Bromfield right now. For this development cycle, the city's priorities should be 1) 115 Winthrop Square, and 2) South Station Tower given the complexities of both. The North Station & Haymarket projects seem to have less NIMBY whining or site problems so they'll either be built or not based on the finances.

All the other projects like 1 Bromfield, Fenway pike project, Adam Weiner's project, etc I'd like to see built but they're not as far along or are having other difficulties. Those might have to wait for the next development boom.

Lastly, I also consider Winthrop Sq to be NIMBY's Waterloo. Its already killing them that 1 Dalton is going up (see Glob comments from them opposing all height and wanting Boston to be like Paris). Ram this one up their asses right to the back of their teeth and you break their spirit. They've had that coming for a long time now.

Harbor Garage should be on top of that LIST: That entire area is depressing on what it should be.